Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:12, 20 December 2007

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Template:Trollwarning

Catalan-speaking countries Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history, languages, and cultures of Catalan-speaking countries on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Catalan-speaking countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesTemplate:WikiProject Catalan-speaking countriesCatalan-speaking countries ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Spain Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

France Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Nonsense map

The map of the catalan countries is pure fantasy. There is actually a fascist current in Catalonia that wants to include territories as Valencia or Balears in a invented entity called Catalan Countries. Valencia and Balears are different countries and communities inside Spain, with their own governments.

Lots of people still speak Catalan in these regions, although they are now in minority. Hugo Dufort 03:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There's not any fascism. It's not an invented entity, because it existed: Corona d'Aragó. The idea is joining together those countries where catalan is spoken: Balearic Islands, Catalonia, Valencia, and a part of the Southern France. It's not fascism, it's a fully democratic proposal. It would only be possible if people wants it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.43.73.233 (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Old undated remark

I removed the sentence

A large, very vocal minority of the inhabitants of the Catalan Countries fervently believe in this concept.

because

1. The meaning of "a large minority" is ambiguous.
2. The remark about fervency does not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia.

I don't see why his article and Catalan independence should be merged. They have different subjects.

confusing sentence

This sentence from the article

This concept is met with significant popular approval in Catalonia, peaceful indifference in the Balearic Islands and with resounding disapproval in the Valencian Community.

either has not much meaning or it is not true. Of course, any political idea is met with different degrees of approval at different places. But everywhere you may find people enthusiastic, indifferent and contrary to it. I understand the idea of the writer of the sentence, but as it is written it is not at all NPOV. In my experience, most Valencians I know are more enthusiastic about the catalan countries than most people from Catalonia. Lacking a rewriting or some justification (real data from somewhere, if it exists), I will remove it.

Don't know whom you know in Valencia, but surely they're not representative of Valencian people. Not having any opinion polls to draw from, I think results of elections are the best pxoy we can use- and PP's absolute mayority in Valencia one election after the other are not quite coherent with your point about Valencian support for the Catalan countries. Out of 89 deputies ellected in the 2003 regional ellections, 0 (zero!) belong to political parties that support the Catalan countries.

I'm not saying at all that most valencians support the catalan countries. It's just that, without appropriate data, the removed sentence held not much meaning. As a side note, I don't understand your point about the number of deputies. There are politicians in several parties with different degrees of support for the catalan countries, for instance in BNV, EU, and even in the PSPV, and this last party governed some years ago.

That is just nationalist propaganda. The reality is that in the Valencian Community, the groups that support the idea of Catalan Countries didn't get enough votes to be represented in the Valencian Parliament. Also in the Balearic Islands they hardly have representation. I restored the sentence as in This concept is met with significant popular approval in Catalonia, indifference in the Balearic Islands and with resounding disapproval in the Valencian Community.

"Support for the catalan countries" does not seem to be a main issue in valencian politics. Thus, it is difficult to measure its support using only electoral results, because the position of each political party is not homogeneous about this issue. Moreover, your claim about the valencian parliement is false. There are 6 deputies of the "entesa" (reference) some of which support the idea of the catalan countries. Also, note that BNV has almost 5% of the votes, which is indeed a significant proportion (albeit not enough to obtain representatives).

It would be nice to have some real data (like a poll asking for support of the idea in the catalan countries) to be able to report encyclopedic facts here. Then, we could forget this kind of discussion, as this is not a political forum. coco

For what is worth, here's a link of a recent polling (October 2005) about it . In short, To the question, Do you think your community belong to the Catalan Countries, the answers were

Community	Against	For	N/A
Balearic Islands	66,2 %	24,6 %	9,2 %
Valencia	81 %	15,2 %	3,8 %

I don't put too much trust on polls, but it does gives some clue --Wllacer 10:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Good link Wllacer. It would be interesting to have more data like this. The problem I see is that the reference article is strongly politically biased and particularly used as a political weapon against the Prime Minister of Spain. Toniher 13:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The article is indeed biased, but the poll data can be serious. I don't know how to judge it. As a side note, the poll questions do not clearly separate the cultural and political meanings of "Catalan Countries". I believe that most people agrees in the cultural unity of the Catalan Countries and don't want (or don't see the need of) a political unity besides being inside europe. coco

I haven't had access to a printed edition of Epoca, so it's hard to judge the poll from a statistic POV (and sigma2 doesn't gives data on its web page), and for sure, wasn't as detailed as we need it (and lacked data from Catalonia proper). But for what I know Sigma2 is a serious company, so the data can be trusted on a first approach (±5-10%)--Wllacer 20:24, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Not by repeating a lie much one becomes truth. You will be able to include it in all encyclopedias of the world, you will be able spend millions in propagating it in all the countries, you will be able to shout it until losing the voice, but NEVER, Something "Valencian" will never be something "Catalan". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.16.187 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.

Origin of the expression?

I've removed the sentence

"""Like the Germans this extremist movement defines the Catalan Countries from Salses to Guardamar and from Fraga to Maó."""

because the "like the Germans" doesn't make any sense and because I can't find the origin of the expresion. The original form was

"""A popular saying defines the Catalan Countries from Salses to Guardamar and from Fraga to Maó"""

The german ties are evident In the DeutschlandLied : "Von der Maas bis an die Memel/Von der Etsch bis an den Belt ...". But I think is just coincidence --Wllacer 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Can someone confirm (and provide a link) whether the phrase is indeed popular or if it's tied to nationalistic culture? --Diego Moya 16:06, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

How does one prove that a saying is popular? I've heard it everywhere, but only orally. Maybe we should remove the adjective "popular" until we have a precise definition of it, but meanwhile I recover the sentence. coco

My doubt was wether this saying had extreme nationalist connotations or it was used by general public. If you have heard it everywhere, I think it's safe to recover it.

My first recollection is around 1975, and i have memories of beeing one radical catch-phrase. I have always associated it with Omnium Cultural (don't remember why) and the radical group PSAN who used it in its Propaganda--Wllacer 17:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I cannot understand the polemics about this sentence. In some sense, it may be regarded a synonym of Catalan Countries. It is used mainly for emphasizing the geographic limits of the cultural and/or political concept. So, this would be considered as 'extremist' as Catalan Countries term might be. Catalan Countries term usage (and this saying as well) was initially minoritary and is nowadays increasingly widespread. This is because there is being a significant recovery of Catalan culture and also an increasing Catalan nationalism/independentism. Parallelly, nowadays Catalan independentism is mostly focused on Catalan Countries, not in Catalonia. All these facts may be reflected in different related articles.

The motto of Omnium is 'Llengua, Cultura, País' (Language, Culture, Country). Omnium acts mostly in Catalonia, but it frequently collaborates with analogous organizations in Balearics Islands (Obra Cultural Balear) and Land of Valencia (Acció Cultural del País Valencià). Toniher 11:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Meta-discussion

(I've upgraded this from the last entry about the sentence) Probably your're right, the phrase doesn't go beyond the anecdotic (that was the sense i wrote my comment, just personal recolletion) but the fact is that the whole concept of Catalan countries is indeed still very polemic (just remember the show a couple of weeks ago in the "Nou Camp", and the reaction in Valencia). I think the whole entry should be marked as polemic and a thead could be started in the Talk Page about this polemics, to keep the readership informed as long as it keeps on an educated interchange of postures. I would throw then my two cents , What do other contributors think ? --Wllacer 20:35, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I think there is no point in adding such a tag as you are suggesting. It's rather obvious that Spanish nationalists (and French ones) strongly refuse this. If added, such a tag should also be added to Euskal Herria, Kurdistan, Palestine, Israel, etc. or more if we considered all the different POV. I think it's better to further develop the topics I suppose you are suggesting in different articles such as Catalan nationalism, Spanish nationalism, Politics of Spain, Politics of France, etc.

Putting the tag is just a matter of editorial and informational nature, not to take a stance. If one tries to write a NPOV encyclopedia and you have entries about items currently in political/social discussion, i think it's well advised to flag them somehow; esp. for the benefit of readers which don't know anything about: the absolute majority of wikipedia readership (and "leech" sites). We should review how is this done in the rest of wikipedia, and their policies, and act accordingly

The reaction you comment about the celebration of Correllengua during half-part in Camp Nou was from the Valencian government and pro-Spanish parties, groups or media. Spanish nationalism in Land of Valencia is indeed stronger than in Catalonia and also less tolerant than it is in Catalonia (which, as a whole, has generally an Iberianistic trend). But this does not imply that all Valencian people are against it, as some media tend to suggest. Catalan Countries present concept is indeed born in the very Land of Valencia and later exported to the other territories. Just as an annotation as reference: there have been Correllengua events in 128 towns in the very Land of Valencia. It is indeed organized there by ACPV (Acció Cultural del País Valencià). I lament all the offtopic stuff I have written. However, I think this may be used as a starting point or extra information for related articles. Best regards Toniher 01:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC).

I might be wrong, but I have a very distinct feeling about the sentiments in Valencia, and I'm not by any means what's called a "blavero" (valencian anticatalanist). The situation there is (or was, since i'm not living there for years) extremely complex, worthy a lengthly topic. Joan Fuster was more right in discovering the divide between Valencia city and land than perhaps in any other thesis in his "Nosaltres els valencians" (I own a copy one since the 70's), and outside viewers might easly confused on causes and effects. And you might allow me to deeply mistrust any attempt to count the spreading of a normalized language as the support of a political agenda.

Toniher, your's aren't offtopic remarks and I fully appreciate your input, and if only for the sake of wikipedia, let's hope this (and other threads) could give a better understanding of the question. --Wllacer 10:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Answering Wllacer's request for opinions, I think that it can be interesting to have a section (instead of a tag) talking about the "acceptance" of the Catalan Countries in the different parts of the territory. However, the knowledge described in that section should be of an encyclopedic nature, and I've found it extremely difficult to find sources for that. I agree with Toniher in that the situation is analogous with te articles on Palestine, Kurdistan, Euskal Herria, etc.coco

I've revised wikipedia's policy, Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view, and coco is right, and I was wrong. Besides a carefull wording, we must somehow manage to get a "critical evaluation" or "controversy" section. I'd split it in two parts one refering to the cultural concept and one to the political to better reflect the dual nature of the term (at least i think it's worth)-Wllacer 19:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing that we must take into account is that this political-cultural dualism is often, de facto, more a continuum than a discrete reality. This is because Catalan nationalism, as a whole, has Catalan language as one of its pilars, Spanish and French ones do as well. There are other cases, such as Irish nationalism, which religion was especially more prominent. Please, see nationalism. Toniher 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

To make me better undestood, I'll try to explain my view of the "controversy" section, with a (not so casual) analogy. For the cultural aspect, do we speak of "Culture(s) in German language" or "German Culture", when studying german (proper), german-swiss and austrian culture(s)?. Given the second clause, in the most unitary sense, ¿do we want/need a polity unifying all areas covered by the "german culture"?. This is the political question. The last (in my analogy) is settled in the foreseable future, but not the first, at least in Switzerland.

Following the analogy, the different languages in Switzerland do make (at least) four diferent cultures or one (or several transversal) multilingüal culture(s)?. Substitute for the relevant terms (to us), and add a note to the "valencian is not catalan", and you'll have a script for a controversy section --Wllacer 16:57, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wllacer, I understand you. And it is a very interesting topic to deal about, and not only for the Catalan Countries, as you have noted. However, specially if we consider this case, we cannot forget the differences with the German world. In the political sense, Germany and Austria are independent countries, and Switzerland is a paradigmatic federal state with high respect for cultural-linguistic diversity. On the other hand, except for the tiny country of Andorra, most of the territory of the Catalan Countries remain under French and Spanish jurisdiction with a variable and limited sovereignty. Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between formerly more sovereign territories with a common origin culture in order to fight back the assimilation of Spanish and French majoritary cultures, and usually associated with the wish of recovering a lost sovereignty. A more extreme and also close case is current Aragon, which has been more strongly assimilated than other territories of the very former Crown of Aragon. All these things can be much explained if we consider socio-historical aspects.

Specially militant Spanish nationalists or anticalanists refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism in order to compare it to Pan-Germanism, and consequently to Nazism. They usually consider promotion of native languages and certain cultural representations (especially in Balearic Islands and Land of Valencia) as an imperialistic cultural and political invasion of Catalonia. Those who do not simply adhere to Spanish language and culture, follow to accentuate the local linguistic differences and propose more of less different alternative language norms which are usually closer to Spanish language.

This is the case of Valencian denomination polemics and blaverism, and it is one of the central points of much of the Politics of Land of Valencia since the end of the Franco dictatorship.

Apart from the obvious Spanish nationalist criticisms, there also some critics from Catalan/Valencian nationalist circles. For instance, some like the concept but find the name is not suitable because of the "Catalan" term. In English language is possible to differentiate between Catalan (Catalan language, culture) and Catalonian (country), but it is not possible in Catalan, Spanish and other languages, and so the term may be regarded as ambiguous. They would suggest other names, but there is not currently any strong proposed alternative. etc. etc. etc. Toniher 12:53, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... this pair of paragraphs you've wrote could make a valuable addition to the article:

"Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between formerly more sovereign territories with a common origin culture in order to fight back the assimilation of Spanish and French majoritary cultures, and usually associated with the wish of recovering a lost sovereignty. On the other side militant Spanish nationalists or anticalanists refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism in order to compare it to Pan-Germanism, and consequently to Nazism. They usually consider promotion of native languages and certain cultural representations (especially in Balearic Islands and Land of Valencia) as an imperialistic cultural and political invasion of Catalonia."

What do you think? 62.57.115.47 01:26, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I agree, I add it. Toniher 09:03, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree at all with the reference to nazism. I've never heard (besides some ramdom trolls) anything like that, even from spanish nationalists. Does it really deserve a paragraph? I would leave only the first part of the paragraph about the solidarity call. However, the idea of confronting two views is valuable (without references to nazism. Seriously, ¿what does it have to do with the catalan countries??) coco

The spanish nationalists PP from Valencia, among others, do use the term nazism to refer to the cultural concept of Catalan Countries (history shows us this is the pot calling the kettle black, but in this case the kettle isn't even grey) they spread FUD by claiming the catalans are annexionists and things like that. You can google for it if you don't believe it, but remember to do it in spanish because they rarely use that ilusory language they claim it's theirs and sooo different to catalan, the Valencian. 62.57.115.47 22:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This comparison is frequent from these groups in opinion columns and even articles of daily published newspapers. It's not a nice fact but things are really this way. It may be considered that groups which may be regarded as 'blavers', which use a non-normative Valencian normally use this comparison as well, but they may be mostly regarded as a whole as anticalanist. Toniher 23:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I was aware of the different actual political status on my analogy, but I chose it for several reasons

• It's true that none of the major "components" of the catalan countries are by itself subjects of international right since a long time, if ever (we can skip Andorra in this discussion), it's no less true that they have ever been, "de jure" or "de facto", acknowledged as separated entities from each other. The novelty of Joan Fuster's view was that he belived to have found a common ground enough to merge them in one (at least cultural) nation. In this sense it mirrors the seeds of XIX german nationalism
• For much of the XIX century and beyond, there was a discussion about the validity of the concept of an unified german cultural nation and what it meant to the political future (Klein vs Grossdeutschand, the Main divide, the status of german swiss, bavarian particularismus, the status of Austria, ...)
• Classical german nationalism (a la Savigny) did not needed statehood to define itself, so it's a better mirror to check the very existence of cultural catalan countries, which is a prerrequisite for any political aspirations which are not "imperialistic".
• The actual conformation of the german speaking states is in fact very modern, driven by nationalism, and I would say, the results are almost casual. Germany as such exists since 1871 (with very different borders), Austria since 1920 and Switzerland, as we know it, probably since 1845 (the Sonderbund war). This is the end result, but does not reflect the status in which german nationalism grew.

Related to our discussion, i just found an e-book about nationalism and history , in the article "Nacionalismo y ciencia histórica en la representación del pasado valenciano" from Pedro Luis Torres, you can find an interesting account on the historiographical debate sparked by Fuster's thesis, and it's evolution in the last years.

It's true the term "pancatalanism" is derogatory, but I'm afraid it's usage reflects a more than common perception in Valencia (as usual we see thing in a very different light) and doesn't limit itself to spanish nationalist circles (objectively, what's this anyhow in 2005?). And part of it is to be blamed to the "language zealots". Normative Catalan is closely modelled after the Central Catalan dialect (around Barcelona), and -willingly- expurged of shared vocabulary with spanish. When strictly taught in the Land of Valencia, it becomes an artificial language, both for native and for spanish speakers, dreaded in school as much as mathematics (it's a common conversation topic). I learnt it (and tried to use) in the early 70's, and can still remember the face of my grandmother, every time i used it to speak to her ...

I'd love to see statistics about the common day usage of the languages in Valencia now, compared to 1980, because the impression i get from my hometown (once considered a bulkward of catalanism) is of stability or even regresion in the day to day usage of valencian/catalan.

The history of the political turmoil around the "signs of identity" of Valencia, would make a great article in wikipedia, but sadly in the line of the Japanese Toilet article, as it was so shameful that it only deserves an humoristic article. The geography of the support to the extreme valencianist (anticatalanist) thesis (using the support to Unió Valenciana as token) reveals one of the internal contradictions of the region, Valencia city vs. the "hinterland" (the rest) . It was basically limited to Valencia city and its environs (the area where the very distinct "apixat" dialect is spoken). And was minimal in areas like Castellón -with an historical grudge against Valencia City- with the exception of the town of Burriana, which in turn has an anti-castellon tradition, ...

Thanks to the pragmatism of PSPV/PSOE and PP is a dead matter now, but for small groups on both sides. One can still hear some boos to the regional himn, but it's all what remains of that.

--Wllacer 12:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments about the language are interesting and and can be further discussed in Catalan or Valencian entries. These topics are commonly discussed among people interested in Catalan language. I personally agree in some things and not in others, but this would take me too long for today... :(

Have you seen the Talk:Valencian page ? NO thanks ;-) Btw. the article as such is superb in the phonological realm, which is not what worries me more (if i'm not accenting). But you're right is a loooong topic --Wllacer 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Valencian usage might have regressed considering two things: 1. The common global dynamics which favour extinction of minoritary or minorised languages in favour of majoritary ones. 2. A less devoted linguistic policy as in Catalonia. It makes sense since PP and PSPV/PSOE are political parties which are part of Spanish counterparts if compared to to Catalonia, governed by CiU (a Catalonian based party) since first democratic elections and until a couple of years ago.

As I wrote about it,(and remember it's just a feeling I have, no hard facts) I was thinking on a couple of other hypotesis:

• The gap between normative and "street" language (and the schooling difficulties associated) has created a disglosy in the body of native speakers, with some degree of rejection of the formal language, which is skipped where it should be used in favor of the other formal language (spanish). It links to your second point, as public administration in Valencia is/must be "language neutral"
• The usage of the normative Catalan is still/has become so politically laden, that it difficults a more widespread adoption.

This choices against the formal language might lead, sooner o later, to a more spreading of spanish as street/home language. Any thoughts /data about it ?--Wllacer 09:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that the problem is so much about the normative, despite there are several discussions in this aspect; but maybe more about the association of Catalan usage to political positions (second point you comment), and that in spite of the language distribution of the historical regional distribution of Spanish and Valencian in Land of Valencia, Valencian governments have supported Valencian usage in traditional Valencian-speaking regions less decisively than in Catalonia. Despite I do personally consider that whole Catalan normative may be improved in terms of dialectal variety, I also think that it is indeed more tolerant than Spanish or French one if we consider linguistic variety, the French case is, for instance, an extreme. We must not forget that social usage of Catalan has been severely limited since Decretos de Nueva Planta, and this obviously have its consequences. Apart, we have other implications related to a current global world and media, so rural areas are not so much isolated as before. Hence, they are more prone to a higher Spanish linguistic assimilation. Toniher 11:31, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I must gently disagree about the tolerance, at least in regards to school class (for what i knew, things might have changed). And don't underestimate the rejection factor (the most hated class means something)--Wllacer 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

As we have said before, there should be several articles about Land of Valencia politics in Misplaced Pages. There are several of them in Valencian and Spanish wikipedia. It may also be useful as a resource a documentary about Transition in this territory. Del Roig al Blau, produced by University of Valencia. mms://147.156.41.66/DO-del_roig_al_blau -> Streaming and it may be found in many other places, there are also Spanish subtitles around... Toniher 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok, maybe I'm a bit disconnected from mainstream media. I would like to see some references of the comparison of catalanism with nazism, coming from serious spanish sources (say, online political fora don't count). Anyway, if only to avoid Godwin's law, I still think we should omit the word nazism in the article. If this relationship really does have to appear in an encyclopedia, maybe it deserves a separate article about anticatalanism. coco

Two newspaper references . If this paragraph is regarded as too strong for this article (despite being a fact) I would not personally mind it could be placed in another article such as anticalanism or pancatalanism. Toniher 00:38, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to cut the paragraph, but like User:coco and for the same reason, i'd omit the reference to nazism. Perhaps the two paragraphs need some more NPOV rewording, something like (I put the bullet just for clarity here):

• The term may be used with a strictly cultural rather than nationalistic meaning, somewhat analogously to Francophony or Hispanic America. In this case, the latter locations are also included within this definition.
• Some consider this concept as a kind of solidarity call between historically and culturally related territores, in order to counterbalance the assimilation into Spanish and French majoritary cultures. This view may usually be associated with the wish of attaining some degree or full sovereignty
• On the other extreme, some refer to the idea of Catalan Countries as Pancatalanism (with a distinct derogatory sense, as they are called anticatalanists). The latter consider the whole concept and certain related cultural activities, which could include the promotion of the normative Catalan language, (especially in Balearic Islands and the Land of Valencia) as vector of imperialistic ambitions from Catalonia."

What do you think ? --Wllacer 08:36, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine for me, I would personally change -> On the other extreme for on the other hand or somewhat. It is best not to describe one or other positions as extremist. I would remove the normative reference, because those who oppose are usually either non-Valencian speakers or simply consider that Valencian!=Catalan language. Many people who suggest changes in normative are indeed very happy with these promotions of Catalan language, because these are mostly centered on its usage and not in specific linguistic aspects. Toniher 11:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The funny thing is that in this survey of opinions we have left out my own (and probably of many valencians): I accept the unity of the language, but I reject the idea of the Països Catalans as a plain artificial construct (nobody noticed ? ;-) But let's stop now in this thread, we're running out of colons !!! --Wllacer 12:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I've updated the article accordingly, but I don't like the last sentence. Pls. feel free to better it.--Wllacer 13:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The absurdity of the term "Catalan Countries"

I stick to my previous comment about the absurdity of this term using a comparison with the Republic of Ireland (Eire). Why is it that nobody refers to the Republic of Ireland (Eire) as being part of the "British Countries" or "English Countries"? Why is it then considered logical to put an entry such as "Catalan countries"?

The term exists but I don't see why it deserves a place in Misplaced Pages. Assuming that in its effort to cover all subjects "objectively" why should such a comparison be ommited? After all, an entry in Misplaced Pages should present both sides of an argument!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.40.23.72 (talk • contribs) 26 Nov 2005.

"Why is it that nobody refers to the Republic of Ireland (Eire) as being part of the … "English Countries"? Possibly because the usual term is "The English-speaking countries", since "English" coupled with "country" only refers to one country. As an ethnicity, the Irish are clearly not English (nor are the Scots, the Welsh, the Ugandans, most of the Americans, most of the Australians, etc.). In the case of the Catalan-speaking peoples, it is much less clear that there is an ethnic distinction. Not that I'm saying there isn't one, just that it's much less clear. Also, Catalan national identity is largely defined by language, English national identity is more defined by ancestry. I have a co-worker with a Basque father and a Galician mother; she grew up in Barcelona and simply considers herself Catalan. A London equivalent might consider herself to be British, but probably not "English" (though this might change if she married someone more unambiguously English). "British", unqualified, does not usually include even Northern Ireland. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

There is Anglosphere. --Error 04:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The respect to the culture and the opinion of a community is the base of all knowledge. An encyclopedia and any person who boasts to defend the culture must fight by this.

Over any discussion with innumerable reasons it is the objective truth, and in this case it is that the Valencians never have felt nor feel Catalan. Any attempt to impose the opposite will be incorrect. Any attempt to put to the Valencians in a community (linguistic, cultural or political) under denomination of "Catalan" it will mean the elimination of a people and a culture. The Valencians have their own history as kingdom of Valencia (before the conquest of Jaume I already the Kingdom of Valencia even existed), its own Literature (innumerable examples, to only mention some: Ausias March and Joanot Martorell), its own traditions (that are not those of Catalonia), Its own culture (in all the scopes, that she is not Catalan), its own control systems (they are not a province of Catalonia and it has never formed part of no organization or Catalan nation) and its own language (of origin different from the Catalan language –provençal- with category of official language and the conscience of its speakers to speak "Valencian", independently of which it is looked like the Catalan).

If the Valencians never have tried to absorve the culture of Catalonia, nor to distort the history of Catalonia, nor, really to eliminate Catalonia like independent reality of Valencia, why the Catalans yes do all this, and they do not respect the Valencians? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.140.16.187 (talk • contribs) 30 May 2006.

To our anonymous vandalizer

Please if you don't believe in the idea of the "Països Catalans" (neither do I, read my previous contributions), don't substitute the whole article. Log into wikipedia, come here to the talk page, put your statements in a way suited for academic discussion, and be open for it. I'm pretty sure we'll find a way your vision will be reflected in the article, as mine had. Sometimes you'll have my support, sometimes not.

Otherwise i'll consider you a vandal, and i'll request your IP to be banned. This is not the wikipedia way ... --Wllacer 07:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm suspecting that it could be the same user that's participating agressivelly on Misplaced Pages in Spanish under the username account es:User:Fuster. In summer an administrator had to block it through two IP ranks (81.41.234.0/24, and 81.41.232.0/24). --Joanot Martorell ✉ 18:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Language Policy

Joan sense nick removed the sentence "It also can refer to those territories where a language policy has been set up in order to favor the preferential (and, in many cases, exclusive) use of the Catalan language." I had just recently changed it for clarity of concept. I completely agree that it shouldn't belong in this article but in a separate one, or perhaps as an example in language policy. --Mankawabi (16 Jan 2006)

Citations

As for the request for citations, well, I would remove the one after "not present at all" and the one after "claims to include".

I'd do so based in the electoral results, which give us a very good idea of the "sentiment" in this regard: in the Land of Valencia's regional parliament there is no nationalist party who succeeds to overcome the 5% votes threshold; besides, the one which has been historically in close of so doing is Bloc, which is not a really "Catalan countries" supporter.

In the Balearics, the PP (a staunch anti-Catalan countries party) holds an absolute majority (just like in the Land of Valencia, by the way), while there are two small nationalist parties in the regional parliament, PSM (4 seats in the autonomous parliament) and UM (3 seats in the autonomous parlimanet, the total number of seats is 59).

UM is in a similar situation to the Bloc's: while being a nationalist party and not denying the unity of Catalan language (something which other minoritary parties do), they are not really supportive of the idea, seen as a 'cheeky' attempt from Catalonia's to overspill the limits of its own Autonomous Community and enter local politics in some others. PSM is indeed mildly supportive of the Catalan Countries idea, but his electoral success is quite limited.

I have no data about this one, but I'm guessing that in La Franja municipalities (let alone the Aragonese regional parliament), there are no nationalist parties achieving representation or, if they did, it would be quite minoritary.

Looks like the factuality of this is strong enough to get these two request for citations removed.

Mountolive 22:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What about l'Alguer?

Everybody knows there is a little village in Sardinia where they speak a dialect of catalan (alguerese). Shouldn't the map be changed?

Onofre Bouvila 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Alghero is not usually counted as one of the "Catalan Countries", though it would be included in the "Catalan-speaking world". - Jmabel | Talk 20:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Would not this apply to Andorra as well? This hole concept of "Catalan Countries" seems weak to me. - Tony

The Catalan is co-official in L'Alguer and there are catalans living there. I've always heard about it as a part of the Catalan Countries, and you just have to search "catalan countries" at Google to see it, so I really don't know what are you talking about. Your point of view is quite subjective. I've added it to the article. Here you can check what I am saying: , , , , . The fact that many people does not add it to the "usual" list of Catalan Countries is due to their ignorance. Onofre Bouvila 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-Name

OK, maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. Catalan Countries is a term I've never heard used in public discourse in English, nor is it used in academic circles, where the original "paisos catalans" or descriptive phrases like "regions in which Catalan is spoken", "traditionally catalan speaking regions" are used. Having an article with this name amounts to wikipedia creating an English term, and then importing a definition of that term that is highly controversial in Spain. Is wikipedia creating the Catalan Countries, rather than describing them? Sorry for going all french and post modern there: But if that was in any way comprehensible I'd like your feedback, with a view to changing the name of the article to "paisos catalans".

I know its not good to use a foreign word as the title for an encyclopedia article, but the translation is ropey as a sail-boat anyway: Mallorca, Valencia and Menorca, by the English definition of the word, never have been, nor ever will be, countries.

080107 boynamedsue

I'd have no real problem with that. Elsewhere, we've used "Catalan-speaking world", but that is probably wrong here: the article is really about the (basically political more than academic) use of "paisos catalans". - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I never realized of how odd "Catalan Countries" may sound in English and it makes sense what you point out about "Catalan Countries" creating an English term which is obviously out of the scope of an encyclopedia. In other words, yes, looks like re-naming to "Països (don't forget the umlaut) Catalans" is best, in the fashion of similar difficult to translate concepts such as Anschluss, which are kept in the original German here. Mountolive 06:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

I have edited restoring some parts which had been removed over the last weeks without -I believe- further explanation or discussion. Also I removed Josep Guia and Vicent Partal because their relevance is quite limited, but I guess I wouldn't have a problem in seeing them back if someone thinks is very necessary. Mountolive 02:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

ps. I am restoring myself Josep Guia, as he even has an article...he's not that relevant anyway, but...Mountolive 03:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I do think they are relevant in this topic. Of course, Vicent Partal has not the media influence of the Spaniards Jesús de Polanco or Pedro J. Ramírez, but he is, no doubt, one of the major referents of Catalan media. Toniher 00:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies: I didn't have any idea that Mr. Partal is the mastermind behind Vilaweb, that makes him somewhat relevant indeed in en.wiki, (I don't think the same for Mr. Guia, but I wouldn't dare to remove one 'blue link', in spite of being obvious that articles for example like Guia's can be written by mere whim). So, we're good here.

Regarding the rest of your edit I have some objections for some parts. I don't agree with removing "very" behind minoritary nor "not present at all". The fact that ERPV has three city councilors in Sueca well...with the due respect, I don't think that is some sort of representation whatsoever but the regional elections data give a more appropiate image of the situation. Also is important to restaure "not present at all" which is the case in -but not only- the Spanish speaking areas of the Land of Valencia. I believe concealing this information is quite misleading in this case.

Hi Mountolive, I removed those elements that I thought that they may confer an opinion. I must admit I was not aware of the Spanish-speaking comarques, in those cases, I might also add elements such as "not present at all" providing the referent, those comarques, is specified. I have included the fact about the actual political representation and explicitness when talking about ERPV, because there are supporters of the Catalan Countries idea which are not actually in ERPV, but in Bloc or even PSPV, or also no affiliated to any political party at all. In those latter cases, they may have a more cultural than political founding, or the political issues are put off because of strategical or political reasonings. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, the reference to the Constitution clause and its unsupported, somewhat speculative reasoning, well, again with the due respect what seemed to be the rationale behind that clause was a possible federation of Navarre and the Basque Country, not the Catalan Countries case, for obvious reasons. I am for removing this part.

You may take a look at the fourth transitional provision of the Spanish Constitution, where Navarre and the Basque Autonomous Community are actually an exceptions to Chapter III. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Finally, as for the Bacàvia thing, is good and I appreciate that you provided the quote, still, since that is a concept which by all accounts hasn't been successful and has been forgotten, I'd go and remove the whole line (including the Catalànic thing) because the only concept which has had some fortune is Catalan Countries. If you still think that these past alternatives are necessary, I don't think is a major issue and I wouldn't object if you want to leave them in place, but it may be interesting not to add what to me seems quite secondary info here.

Well, I only included it for sake of a historic account, I did not pretend to make it primary. Instead of removing it, which I regard that is against trying to build up an encyclopedic resource, I would contextualize it more, for instance stating that they were unsuccessful proposals. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear your opinion before editing. I try to be as good willed or impartial as possible, I dont have a doubt you will be also. Thanks.

Here you have. Thanks as well. Toniher 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountolive 04:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the Transitional Provision and the article in the Spanish constitution barring federation amongst Autonomous Communities clash. In other words, I still think that what the Constitutionalist had in mind at the time of issuing the legal impossibility of federating was Navarre and the Basque country because what the Transitional Provision is doing is allowing a merging between those two communities. Given the historical entity of Navarre and a so far majoritary rejection to this idea, then it was implemented the prohibition of a federation which would have allowed a de facto merging while formally respecting Navarrese institutions and autonomy. Anyway, since looks like neither you nor I can provide cold facts, I have reworded the sentece instead of removing it. I have removed indeed the allusion to the 23-F, which happened well after the Constitution was passed and so is out of place there.

I have restored the "very minoritaty" and "not present at all". I understand your concern about these conferring an opinion but, given the political support obtained (0,32% of the total votes) in this case is merely descriptive. I am against mentioning the Spanish speaking areas, for these are not the only ones: think for example of L'Alacantí, from a total population of say 500,000 the number of supporters of the Catalan Countries are how many? 1,000 at its best?

I have also reworded it in order to note that there are other smaller parties than ERPV which support this concept.

I have cut

In the 1980s, Josep Guia proposed in his book "És molt senzill, digueu-li Catalunya" (It's very easy, call it Catalonia) that independentists should prefer the term Catalonia for referring to the whole Catalan Countries as the latter might be too cumbersome and hence less encouraging. Nonetheless, in those very groups, Catalan Countries remain being the most preferred term. Guia's proposal is actually slightly more popular in English-written references than in Catalan ones.

because, as is stated, this proposal didn't get approval nor even the concerned groups. If we are to quote all of the unsuccesful steps of the debate, I think we are messing the article and making it lose its point. I agree with you with the Bacàvia thing: it was probably only misplaced in the article which made it look weird (I have placed it in what I believe is a more relevant context).

PS. Actually I am cutting

Whereas Joan Maragall and Francesc Cambó wrote about the "Greater Spain", Enric Prat de la Riba published his article "Greater Catalonia" in 1906, where he suggested the term "Catalunya Gran" for the whole Catalan Nation, taking as a model the Greater Britannia and the Commonwealth. However, that term soon got associated with Bismarck's Grossdeutschland and later with Nazism; because of all those imperialism connotations, many of its defenders preferred to abandon it.

for similar reasons.

PSS. Does the PSAN still exist or has informally merged into ERPV? do you know? (I see they maintain a website based in Barcelona but do you know if they have run recently in Valencian elecions?)

Hope you pretty much agree. Mountolive 17:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I won't disagree too much ;) In the future I might even contribute more about the history of the idea, and I feel it is a shame not to offer it to people who may be academically interested in this topic. So, maybe in a few months I will restore and improve those issues.

About ERPV representation facts, I agree, but consider what I have said about the transversalism of the idea (compassing all the cultural to political spectrum) beyond parties. This may be even shocking to me, but it's not somewhat only present in Valencian Country, but in other territories. Anyway, if I made any edit, I would try to provide some good references. On the other hand, despite Valencian Country is surely where the Catalan vs Spanish national ideological front is harsher, and so its interest, the discussion is too much centered on that territory and ignoring others, so that should be improved.

About the army, I think it is necessary to provide a context to readers in order they may understand why this statement, especially in those times, when certain military sectors even disagreed with the very new constitution. A link to 23-F in "military pressures" suffices.

About PSAN, it exists, but as far as I know, they have less support than in former times (because of splits and new groups emerging) and I do not think they will present in any elections. At most, they have partially supported, and might personally contribute to, electoral coalitions such as the Candidatures d'Unitat Popular.

Toniher 09:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

IN VALENCIA WE SPEAK VALENCIAN, NOT CATALAN.VALENCIAN LANGUAGE EVEN HAD A GOLDEN CENTURY, AND WAS THE FIRST LITERARY ROMANCE LANGUAGE. HOW DARE YOU REFUTE SUCH FACTS???

STICK YOUR CATALAN IMPERIALIST DREAMS UP YOUR ARSE. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE HOW RIDICULOUSLY  BIASED WIKIPEDIA IS, AND HOW IT HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY A BUNCH OF IDIOTS SPREADING LIES.

No!!

Hello British, American, Australian, Canadian and all the people who speak English and consult this article: This article this writing by Catalan nationalists and does not mark the true situation of Catalonia and Spain.

A greeting from Spain: Jluisrs

Article reflects true situation

I think it reflects well the true situation and the hostilities which some historical truths arouse. Small nations always have a bad time when interfacing with empires. In a recent poll made in Russia it came out that the biggest enemy of Russia was ... Latvia!

The Spanish empire and its supporters erased many languages, and obviously its spirit continues to do so by creating division and sowing discord. The fact that some people react rudely just confirms that truth hurts certain vested interests.

Isn't it true that general Franco forbid printing in Catalan and teaching Catalan in schools? Isn't it true that he hated the Catalan language and not only denied Catalan official status, but he even persecuted those who stuck to it?

Therefore the hurts carry on and are not near to be resolved. There is a struggle between those who want to allow Catalan to continue and those that would rather erase it for ever if they could, using whatever instrument at hand to do it. Most Valencians are willing istruments for the eventual erasing of their own tongue in the future. The Catalans come first, Valencians will not be spared later.

I do not where are you from, I hope that you are not a foreigner, because I would not want you to have this idea about the linguistic situation in Spain. You speak aobut Franco (Do you know that he died more than 30! years ago?). The spanish Constitution recognice all languages in Spain, they are official, used everywhere, even you can learn these languages in all the spanish universities (not only in Catalonia). The only linguistical hostility in Spain is that done by anti-spanish nationalists against the spanish language and spanish-speakers in Catalonia. There are a normal situation in Galicia, Valencia, Aragon, Asturias and so on. There are anothers languages in that places, but there are not conflicts, bacause they do not use the language as a weapon. The idea of "Catalan Countries" is against the valencians, that consider themselves valencians and spaniards, with a history and culture different from the Catalan one. Why is this not respected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.223.24.67 (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The only linguistical hostility ?

Can you, unsigning one, provide proof of the hostilities by anti-spanish nationalists? Small nations located between greater empires have always been accused of what you say. Do Spanish-speakers living in Catalonia or Valencia respect the local language? Can you provide proofs that they do? Can you prove that the Spanish state is innocent? You need to be reminded that Polish, Ukrainian and Lithuanian people were also accused of being "anti-Russian nationalists" and many died in the Gulag at the hands of Stalin. Your voice sounds so much like the Voice of the Empire. I know well that Franco is dead, but Franco's legacy is alive and well with your opinions!

I very much doubt that the Spanish (Castillian) language needs defending. It's preposterous! This is like the story of the wolf being mistreated by the lamb. Regarding the Valencians "suffering" at the hands of the Catalans, can you provide tangible proofs of all your accusations? Can you prove that The only linguistical hostility in Spain is that done by the smaller Catalonian nation against the greater Spanish state and its formidable linguistic legacy in the ex-Spanish colonies? Or is that only your own opinion?Mohonu 09:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png

Image:Flag of Valencia Autonomo community.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For those who disagree or dislike this article

A message for those who disagree or dislike this article, being them Spanish nationalists or Valencians blaverists, please remember that your contributions on this talk page are not helping to improve its quality, but only expressing your own political points of view, and that's not the purpose of Misplaced Pages: Misplaced Pages is not a forum. Thank you. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not an edit-war either...Should you need to take a look at this. Before giving advices to other users, you should better "Practice what you preach/Lead by example" ;) --Maurice27 (talk) 01:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry?

Are you trying to tell me how to behave?

Compare my block log and yours , please.  :)

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a difference... I don't preach anybody how to behave... See the difference? Eh? Do you see it? ;) --Maurice27 (talk) 17:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Globalize

As proven by a number of comments on this talk page, the examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Therefore, it is important to explain to non-related to Catalonia users this point. --Maurice27 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain please which perspective is missing? I think it is well explained that it is a concept that includes some territories and also the controversy behind it. Which section is missing?--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the template! "This article deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". Any perspective or section is missing. But, as you know perfectly BTW, the Catalan countries subject is only used in Catalonia. Neither in Valencia, Andorra, Southern France it is used. Therefore, "This article deals primarily with Catalonia and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". --Maurice27 18:40, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only used in Catalonia? "As you perfectly know", this term was born in Valencia because many Valencians felt that they also belonged to the "Catalan nation" that was being claimed by nationalism in Catalonia. And actually it is very used in Valencia (maybe even more than in Catalonia) both by those who support the idea and those who do not. In the rest of Catalan-speaking area, it is the main word used when refering to this territory, as none of the alternatives (Catalanofonia, Comunitat Catalànica, Bacàvia...) has reached such popularity. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 11:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove the template as it is obviously geographically centered in the Catalan Countries.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the template has a point, even though you are right when you say that the concept is known also outside of Catalonia...i.e. in Valencia and the Balearic islands. So, I guess the template should read "this article deals primarily with the "Catalan Countries" (sic) and does not represent a worldwide view of the subject". That may sound a bit absurd, but, actually, the concept is, I'd dare to say, quite out of fashion ever since the 80s (at least in Valencia) and has become mostly self-centered as well, with virtually no factuality outside of discussions like this one.

I support the tag because I actually have an issue with the "Catalan Countries" ill translation from Catalan. That is why I stand by the tag unless the article name is changed to "Països Catalans", because "Catalan Countries" doesn't make any sense in English and, in the worst case, it may even be misleading.

If "Valencian Country" already doesnt make sense (check the relative discussion in the relative talk page.... if you dare and have a lot of time to read circular so called reasoning) go figure out "Catalan Countries" which is even more odd, because this moniker is suggesting that a "country" (like, for example, Valencia, which, let's not forget about it, is not a "country" whatsoever in the English language sense) is defined by another "country", Catalonia. Altogether, it is very uneasy English, to say the least. As I wrote elsewhere in this talk page, in English they (I'm not a native speaker myself) don't say "English Countries" for countries speaking English, nor "Spanish Countries" and so on....so why should be Catalan be different grammatically?

Should the name of the article be changed to "Països Catalans", I'd probably support untagging it for, that way, the oddity of the concept when directly translated is lost while the integrity of the article is preserved.

See, for example, a similarly irredentist concept such as anschluss which is not translated in the English wikipedia, I guess because any attempt would be uneasy and tricky.

Mountolive | Talk 18:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Lacking myself the grace to explain it the way he does it, just wanna to quote in this regard that Seventh Force of nature called user:boynamedsue

OK, maybe this is a good idea, maybe not. Catalan Countries is a term I've never heard used in public discourse in English, nor is it used in academic circles, where the original "paisos catalans" or descriptive phrases like "regions in which Catalan is spoken", "traditionally catalan speaking regions" are used. Having an article with this name amounts to wikipedia creating an English term, and then importing a definition of that term that is highly controversial in Spain. Is wikipedia creating the Catalan Countries, rather than describing them? Sorry for going all french and post modern there: But if that was in any way comprehensible I'd like your feedback, with a view to changing the name of the article to "paisos catalans".

I know its not good to use a foreign word as the title for an encyclopedia article, but the translation is ropey as a sail-boat anyway: Mallorca, Valencia and Menorca, by the English definition of the word, never have been, nor ever will be, countries.

Again, because of the lack of partnership towards other users by some contributors, I must explain AGAIN my point in order to prevent further reverts.

As a user and contributor of wikipedia, I have the right to edit what I believe must be improved or corrected. Some users such SMP, but mainly Casaforra are preventing me to exert this right by erasing or simply reverting good faith edits.

The Globalize tag was created to advice users about the nature and quality of the articles about to be read. As I expressed above, I believe this article to be completely biased towards a pan-catalanist POV; not only because it only explains the vision of this subject in Catalonia, but also because it lacks of ANY SINGLE reference about the vision in the other regions mentioned.

In my humble opinion, only this, is sufficient to add the tag. Maybe Casaforra believes the contrary, but he decided not to contribute and simply reverted my edit.

As Mountolive explained above, even the original “Països Catalans” has an arduous use outside Catalonia. I may link here 100+ sources proving this fact and the doubious correctness of the use of this term.

I would like to add to the users reverting me that, when one user disagrees with another’s edit, he should bring sources and/or references to prove that he is correct and the other one isn’t. Explanations such as “many Valencians felt that they also belonged to the "Catalan nation" or “it is the main word used when refering to this territory, as none of the alternatives (Catalanofonia, Comunitat Catalànica, Bacàvia...) has reached such popularity” as SMP gave us, are simply not sufficient. Casaforra did not even bother to participate before reverting me.

Once again, I am suffering the frontal attacks of some members of the “CAT-TEAM”. A group of users which is only interested in preventing good faith users to improve or correct their heart-beloved pan-catalanists biased edits to the point of getting the opponent into an open war rather than collaborating.

I would like that users Xtv, SMP and Casaforra explain to the community their reasons to remove the tag when this article is completely biased because of the following reasons:

• It does not give any single reference about the use of this term by the population of all the regions and territories mentioned (apart Catalonia, of course)
• It disguises as a “linguistic sense” what clearly is a political feeling (once again, any reference is given to prove this point and, meanwhile, the political explanation covers 2/3 of the article)
• It uses Pan-Catalanist terms such as “Northern Catalonia” (which is not official nor has any meaning outside Catalonia) instead of the correct Roussillon, misusses medieval terms such as “Kingdom of Majorca” or “Kingdom of Valencia” (which do not exist anymore) and finally, it invents just plain imperialistic terms such as this “little jewel”: Catalan Sea!!! (I guess they meant Balearic Sea, as it is clearly referenced in wikipedia here and here (Spanish wikipedia)… Or was it on purpose?)

I hope this proves the NEED of the tag to be heading the article to prevent readers to get a false and biased information. --Maurice27 (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't notice the "Catalan Sea" thing...that is some geographic discovery, to say the least! I never heard of that even if I am quite (and dangerously) familiar with Catalan nationalist speech...I guess I need some doctrinary refreshment by now, for the boys keep working and don't bother to check with their older daddies ;)

Now, more seriously, even though my issues with the tag may be more related to other reasons than the ones exposed just above (those are worth looking at, too, BTW) I have to agree that the sole mention of a so-called "Catalan Sea" blessing the coasts of Castelló and the Balearics probably justifies the tag, because the so called "Catalan Sea" for the so called "Catalan Countries" is certainly too self-centered in Catalonia.

In Catalonia proper or Valencia and Balearics too? well, you just can't tell it easily; this is a good example of my problems with the direct and ill-fated translation. I may agree with someone who wants to call the tract of the Mediterranean sea before Catalan coasts "Catalan sea" (a quite parochial POV anyway, but if that makes him happy...). However, in the map the "Catalan Sea" goes beyond and sucks some water (soon to be desalinated, I guess) from the Balearic one. Indeed, "Catalan sea" may not represent a worldview, the worldview knows it as "Balearic Sea". Mountolive | Talk 09:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree absolutely the way Maurice27 is managing the things here:

Without any previous discussion he decided to put that Globalize tag. And that's what I'm reverting.

First discuss your change, try to reach a consensus, and after that, put the tag.

Regarding the reasons he now gives about this article, juts a brief answers:

* The term "Països Catalans" was spreaded by Joan Fuster, a Valencian. I don't know if he created it or not, but it's used not only in Catalonia, also in the places where Catalan is spoken, and not only by nationalists but also by linguists, for example.

* The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" is due to the linguistical fact. That is, Catalan nationalism is not based on religion, ethnics or whatever, but on the fact that Catalan is spoken in those places.

* "Northern Catalonia" is not Rosselló, but also Alta Cerdanya, Capcir, Conflent and Vallespir.

* If that pic is not proper feel free to change it for another one.

So, in short, Maurice27 your reasons are false, politically biased and motivated by your Anti-Catalanism, which has been proven blatant by the RfA that blocked you.

By the way, Maurice27, I'm still waiting for your excuses for your lies about me: My edits on the article of Catalonia for months, and me calling you fascist.

Lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, lies, Maurice27, ...

And I won't recall again your linguistical theories about Valencian and Catalan... :D

--Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

In case it's not clear: I revert your tag because you didn't discuss it, you just imposed it and now you want to keep it without any discussion.

Hehehehe, everytime I see those summary edits of the people who donated saying something like "wikipedia brings back the faith in human beings", "Misplaced Pages is the manifest of human collaborative spirit" or the one I am just seeing now "most people don't realise how entertaining Misplaced Pages is" I think to myself..."guys, you'd better come over the CAT stuff before donating!" :D Mountolive | Talk 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

:D Casaforra, my beloved "extremist collaborator", finally you decided to participate!!!! hurra!!! That's a good start!

• I would like to point you that I'm not "changing", but adding
• All your allegations are lovely ones... But once again, DO YOU HAVE REFERENCES? Algo de "chicha" para apoyar tus propuestas...? I would love to read more about the "The political feeling of the "Països Catalans" being due to the linguistical fact". Catalan Imperialists Graffitis pictured from Majorca or el Carxe could also defend your point... Give us (the community) references!
• If you don't bring references or sources to back your point, how are we supposed to even take care of it?
• I'm not even going to answer to your "Northern Catalonia" ridiculous excuses...
• I wasn't blocked for my anti-catalanism... I was blocked for defending the truth! Because your "CAT-TEAM", instead than look for solutions to our controversial matters, just wanted to get me banned. Am I wrong? Am I?
• Why are you allowing me to change the map (I guess because you admit it is biased and incorrect) and you prevent me to warn other users about the biased and incorrect content in this article?
• If I may "feel free" to change the map, Why do I need your consensus to add the tag? See the irony, Casaforra? Do you see it?
• And finally... I would like you to post or link here WHERE does it say that I must reach a consensus with you in order to keep the tag. If you fail to give it to me, the tag remains! I'm not here to lose my time with incongruent discussions with someone like you.

• If you are still waiting for my excuses, I can only tell you that if it is itching you, then you should start scratching yourself. See, life for us, french fascists, it's all about us and our belly buttons. --Maurice27 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Let me tell you how this works:

You have an idea to improve the article, if it's not polemical you edit it freely, if it's polemical you propose your idea on the talk page, if everybody agrees you add your idea, if not you try to reach a consensus.

But, Maurice27, you don't use to remain civil, neither you seem to be able to discuss civilly, and even less you follow Misplaced Pages rules. This time, a polemical idea of yours, that Globalize tag, which has been proven to be polemical, was not previously proposed or discussed on the talk page. You simply put it. And that's not the way it goes...

If you want that tag to prevail, discuss it, and if anybody disagrees try to reach a consensus about the tag.

Until no consensus about the tag is reached, it doesn't belong here. Point. --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what if instead of threatening with reporting me for 3RR do you count the times you have reverted? 4RR!

1, 2, 3, 4 ... --Casaforra (parlem-ne) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The Flag

That flag is a lie, unofficial, and totally fictional, that flag have never been official, it's a new politic flag, that somebody did someday bored.---- Codorado (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes but it is popular. Many people see it on TV (or on the wall graffiti) and wonder. People throughout the world have a right to information. Misplaced Pages's main purpose is to inform. To describe the reality. All flags were at some point made by someone. Spare us your POV please. Mohonu (talk) 01:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This flags is only the flag of a politic-point in Catalonia, that politic-point is only from a small group, for the rest of the "Catalan Countries", they are not in that group, they are so far from that gruop, for example, oficially in Valencian Community they don`t speak catalonian, they speak valecian, a different language for them. The Catalan Countries are a lie, except for a gruop of people in Catalonia, that represents a small part, this can not be a official name of nothing. and that flag is only a political flag of a small group, that can not been a unofficial flag of the other regions, and for the rest of Catalonia without that POV.--Codorado (talk) 22:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

We all know that the anti-Catalan sentiment is being promoted by important sectors of the Spanish State, but this is an Encyclopedia, not a hate-forum

People like Codorado are totally POV. The Catalan Countries are linguistically not a lie. You just need to consult the Romanic linguistic department of any major university (Berkeley, Cambridge, Chicago, etc.), whereby you will know that the versions of Catalan spoken in the low Ebre valley and up to El Segriá are little different from the versions spoken even down to Alcoi and Castalla. What is a lie is that Valencian is a separate language.

What you make clear in your writings is that there is a powerful political group in Valencia which thrives on promoting hatred against Catalonia and everything Catalan. This is a cleary political agenda that benefits Spanish expansionist interests that seek to make Catalonia irrelevant. All empires have been very good at dividing and ruling. But this is an encyclopedia. If you want to promote your political hatred, please go to some pro-Spanish blog. No hysteria and no POV is welcome in Misplaced Pages.61.7.179.66 02:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Particular point of view

I think this article has a particular point of view in defining Catalan Countries almost exclusively as a political and nationalistic/separatist concept. However, it is also a linguistic concept, I would even say, it is first a linguistic and cultural concept (not without controversy, of course), and then used by some politicians to advocate for nationalism and separatism. This article focuses exclusively on the latter and not on the former. --the Dúnadan 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dúnadan.

I guess in the first place I have to admit that I don't like to be simply reverted as you did, because I like to think there is some point in my contributions that can always been salvaged, and don't like being treated like a mere vandal. But this is a matter of manners and not really your problem, just spare the "sorry" for I guess it is more like my own problem.

After this unproper autobiographic comment, well, it looks like you didn't get the point behind my "guilders" comment. As a matter of fact, being Catalan nationalist is not a guilder in itself, is it? (I may have suspicions it may have become so in some mancomunitats, specially at the time of public funding distribution, but I'd still rather think it is not).

I guess the constraints of a summary edit didn't show the point of my edit (let alone the irony) and I apologize for that. What I do mean is that a plumber, a fireman and, why not, a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalists or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists, even though they are not assumed by the whole linguist community. For example: Carod-Rovira is a Filologia Catalana bachelor (thus, he's roughly a linguist) and a Catalan nationalist as well. Please don't bite the hook of the example, because it may not be the best anyway, but I think you get the idea of what I mean: one thing (guild) doesn't exclude the other (political adscription).

That is why I think I'll come back to my previous version ("primarily by Catalan nationalists") because it is both the most inclusive (all guilds, including linguists) and the most descriptive. I may do so unless someone changes my mind with some reasoning other than the one provided so far.

Moreover, ok Kathryn is one linguist, many other linguists won't call it "Catalan Countries" (that's by the way, a really odd wording in English, and that is another story, but for sure is not widely accepted in English-speaking communities, and I guess it is less so among linguists if only because they are supposed to have a superior command of English). I'd say that, actually, most linguists (let alone English-speaking ones) may call this the "Catalan domain" or something alike. Therefore, mentioning "linguists" is not a good idea, for, then, it should also be mentioned that "most linguists don't use this term" unless a reference was provided proving that there is general consensus among linguists designating this as "Catalan Countries". And that is not the case.

On the POV thing you note above, well, you'd say its usage is first linguistic and cultural while, myself, I'd say that, at least for Valencians, has become (regardless the original usage of the term) almost an exclusively political one. Opinions are like arses, everybody's got one, after all. In any case, feel free to overhaul accordingly to debase that political so called POV you feel. Actually, you have called my attention in this regard and I may also make some contribution debasing the linguistic POV, for the equivalence with the Lusofonia, Francophonie and the like stated in the lead is, to say the least, vague and not necessarily good enough.

Mountolive | Talk 19:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

HI Mountolive,

I must say that reversion does not imply that the previous version was the work of a vandal. In fact, I did not use the abbreviations "rv" (revert) much less "rvv" (reverting vandalism). Reversions are, for the most part, if backed up with a solid reason -like mine- valid editions, especially if a reversion reverts (pardon the redundancy) deletion of content.

I did understand your arguments, albeit constrained by the limited space of the edit summary. And I disagreed, as I still do. Now that you say you even want to debase the linguistic POV by eliminating the only reference to linguistics in the introduction (that of comparing the Francophonie to the Catalan Countries), the article will be simply reduced to an -nationalistic POV of a term that originally started as a linguistic concept that evolved into a cultural identity -one advocated by the Valencian Joan Fuster. If you do so, I am afraid I -as well as other users with knowledge of the term- will most probably revert you. As you know, WP:NPOV does not mean simplification, but the exposition of all different POVs whether contradictory or inclusive. As such, the linguistic meaning of a term which originally started as a linguistic term, must be preserved, as long as with the politically charged connotations it has acquired amongst some sectors of the Spanish society.

As for the inclusion of a "better" term, such as "Catalan domain", unless properly backed up by a reference, it would most probably violate WP:OR. Citing a linguist -amongst many- who make us of the term Catalan Countries, in spite of the apparent "oddity" of the term (which, as a Native English speaker I fail to see such "oddity"), complies with WP:CITE (obviously) as well as WP:OR. If you do have references to back up the apparent "guess" (citing) that the term is less "widely accepted in English-speaking communities", then by all means add it. If not, then, for the sake of maintaining the article free of personal POVs, we should avoid it. If a reputed linguist uses it, then its inclusion complies with WP:CITE.

Finally, your argument that claims that all linguists who make use of the term are a subset of nationalists, and therefore to simply state that "nationalists" use the term suffices is not correct. I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!). In other words, there is an intersection of the set of nationalists who are also linguists but the set of linguists is not a subset of nationalists. Granted, you might argue that so is the case of the subset of plumbers, but the term Catalan Countries is not a term related to plumbery, nor did it originate by that guild. What a reputed economist has to say about a Mixed Market Model is relevant to that subject, and not what a plumber says. In the same way, what a linguist has to say about the linguistic meaning of Catalan Countries is relevant to the article, but -as you pointed out- what the plumber says is quite irrelevant.

I maintain my position: the article must properly explain the origin and evolution of the term: a linguistic term that evolved into a cultural one, and finally advocated by a group of nationalists. It must also explain why the term, today, if politically charged... in fact, the article does good job at that already, but a very poor job of the linguistic connotation of the term.

I hope this comment may serve to enrich our discussion and to improve the quality of the article.

--the Dúnadan 21:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey.

Well, since I have never seen you neither moving nor giving up from your initial positions ever since we have crossed ways (a few times, not many anyway) I didn't have any reason to believe that this one was going to be anything different, so, at least, this keeps the discussion in the "business as usual" level which we are used to (is this really good? I don't think so, but that's what we have and we have to get along with it). In any case, neither I am a good example of changing my mind (other than a couple times, to Xtv, I think...hello, Xtv! :) However, it has become more frequent that I end up, if not conceding, then just giving up, such as in Valencian topics (to Joanot aka Benimerin, once to you as well, in Names of Valencian Community) for the sake of my sexlife's quality (when I feel myself spending too much time around here with circular arguments, then I close my eyes and...quit).

Now, still generally speaking, but more focused in what matters here: when I suspect that the editor I'm discussing with, s/he knows about the factuality of my claim as much as I do, but, instead of conceding, s/he chooses starting listing all the wiki guidelines (WP:CITE, WP:OR, WHATEVER) then I know I am in trouble, for it looks like s/he wants me to bother in googling something that we both know about, instead of dealing about the topic in some other more constructive way. This, unfortunatelly, doesn't enters me in "consensus mood" because there is nothing more futile than discussing to someone who won't change their views. Excuse this another unrequested autobiographic note, Dúnadan, I just mention it because, in all honesty, I'm sorry to say that it looks like you are acting like that.

Anyway, despite all the above, I normally bite the hook, play the game if only for a while, before giving up. Therefore, here I am, googling "Catalan domain". Many entries appeared but, since neither in the first two pages had these two words next to the other but just very close and knowing by experience that, when people enters this mood of asking for the other about references on obvious facts, they will want it exactly that way, then I looked for an alternative "Catalan speaking areas". These are just 3 entries from the first two pages . They prove nothing but the fact that Kathryn used "Catalan Countries" in this paper doesn't mean that she is using the standard linguistic parlance on the matter. Period. And (lacking references) let me say that Ms. Kathryn's (hello, Kathryn! :) was not using the standard this time. If you have references proving that the international linguistic community refers to that as "Catalan Countries", please bring them here.

But I won't make you look for references proving that Països Catalans was originally a linguistic only term (this seems to be central in your reasoning). I could ask you for that, "just to confirm", but I don't need to ask for what I already now and I don't want to make you busy unnecessarily. But then I also know that, at least in Valencia (and some noticeable tracts of Catalan society and elsewhere) it has evolved into a mainly politic one ever since the 80s. But this is another discussion and should be shelved.

(By the way, let me just point out that I could also provide references "proving" that either Elvis is alive, Hitler didn't order any genocide or stating that Valencian is not related to Catalan in any way. Therefore, let me please give a mere relative value to references, specially interenet ones. But this is just another side note, so please don't bother with this one, but go about the points you missed, please).

I can't see why the article would be reduced to an "-nationalistic POV" such as the one you fear after an eventual edit from my side. I wouldn't make assumptions on how an article it's going to look like before someone else edits it: it's risky and not really inviting to consensus. Actually I think it will be quite easy to open two sections, one Països Catalans as a linguistic community and another Països Catalans as a political desideratum instead of keeping it as it is now, with both approaches mixed in a rather messy way (BTW, I can't see why you place before the nationalist dimension. If you do assumptions of what people will think on something before it is even made, then it may look like you are acting under a POV yourself as well; I just mention this as a friendly note to improve your reasoning, don't get me wrong, as I know it is easy to be misunderstood over written stuff...hello Dúnadan! :).

I read you elsewhere saying that you were also a native Catalan speaker. I think that would explain that you fail to see the "oddity" of Catalan Countries, don't you think? You have dealt with both languages from a tender early age and so your brain keeps up with the whole thing at ease. But other English native speakers already said where it was pertinent that "Valencian country" didn't make sense at all (ask, for example, user:Boynamedsue in this regard, he knows better than I do...hello, BNS! :) let alone "Catalan Countries".

Take it this way, if you want: do we say in English "French countries" for countries speaking French? "Spanish countries"? "English countries"?. I can't see why Catalan language should be an exception when it comes to English grammar. The translation is obviously direct and, therefore, not particularly fortunate. But that, once again, is another story, I am biting the hook here regarding something inessential to the present dicussion and I had enough anyway with the qüestió de noms in my native language to try translating it into English. Really, I have better things to do.

As for I assume you see the fallacy of it, for many linguist who use the term -especially non-Spaniards such as Mrs. Woolard- are evidently not nationalists (how could they, of a country they are not even part of!) I indeed notice the phallacy of quoting me à la carte, since I actually wrote "a linguist, may be, besides, Catalan nationalist or assuming concepts from Catalan nationalists". I find it particularly useless to have to explain this part, but I will for the sake of...whatever. Anyway, why getting grumpy when it is not hard to neither explain nor understand: the fact that I am not Berber, doesn't mean that I can be sympathetic for Berber's, say, demand of autonomy or Berber's traditional hunting methods. I don't have to be native Berber to have my own opinion on their things, right? This is a particularly weak part of your reasoning and I invite you to delete it along with this paragraph, for this discussion is already acquiring the typical frustrating traits of Catabrawling: much talking, little action, (slightly)Catalanist POV 1 - neutrality in wikipedia 0, well, that is just how I see it, of course (sorry if I sound harsh, not meant, really, it is just that the whole thing is getting reminiscent of the reasons why I took a long wikibreak and this dejà vu is not so nice, just seeing me soon running away from wikipedia, like a chicken, once again).

Well, after all, maybe the above clear up is not so insignificant, for this is where you magnificently missed the point in my post above. The fact that one linguist (for the time being, we only have one) chooses the "Catalan Countries" moniker doesnt mean that this is the standard name in the linguistic community. And the fact that she is a linguist, doesn't mean that she can't be sympathetic to Catalan nationalism either. Therefore, writing "primarily Catalan nationalists" is more inclusive, for it includes Catalan nationalists and other people, such as plumbers or linguists (whether sympathetic or not to Catalan nationalism).

Please don't miss the primarily word; it wasn't included in the previous version, I added it after Pmmollet (hello Pmmollet! :) opened the question, for, while not agreeing with Pmmollet's edit, I think I understood his point (that not only Catalan nationalists use this moniker) and so I think this word makes the whole thing more exact or bearable to everybody.

So, all in all, after all the bla bla, and waiting for your reply to the above main point I think you are missing (just skip all the rest if you may: we are making it ridiculously long once again, aren't we?) I also maintain my position and I'm therefore editing the short passage which started this discussion. In days to come I will go about the Political/Linguistic distinction. I don't think it is particularly troublesome to split these in two clearly distinct sections, feel free to work on that yourself if you don't trust me. I hope this one is not casus belli, even though, sometimes, I have the feeling that anything with the adjective "Catalan" around it, becomes so....don't you?

Mountolive | Talk 00:32, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I guess I don't resent your invitation to "other users with knowledge of the term" to revert me if I edit in a particular direction you don't like. But I note it. And I kinda resent how easily you didn't include me among those users...

You are right, I could have only read the last paragraph and avoided the -unnecessary- arguments of my supposed motivations, my purported hidden intentions or how messed up my brain is given that I speak more than one language. I guess if you say so, you might be right. So I will not engage in that useless diatribe of trying to prove whether my intentions are honest or whether my brain actually functions properly -linguistically speaking. Maybe some other night I will. To me, the issue is quite simple. There are two opposite positions in issues related to the Catalan Countries, that of some Valencians and that of some Catalans (after all some Valencians do feel part of these "Catalan Countries", and some Catalans do feel they are Spanish and not of any particular "Catalan" identity). Misplaced Pages users, coming from different backgrounds will probably try to defend their own POV with whatever means possible, and sometimes engage in demagogy and argumentation to prove that their version is not a POV but the right POV. I am not trying to prove here that my version is the right one. Bear with me if I cite, again, one Misplaced Pages policy that of WP:NPOV. It requires that articles report all possible POVs and given their due weight. As such, I will not edit any reference to the politically charged connotation of the term. But, I think the article is written in such a way, that the political nationalistic connotation seems the most pervasive, which is not necessarily the case. Not in all Academic Circles, and not in all regions where Catalan is spoken. Therefore, and undue weight is given to a particular POV. I might strongly disagree with you, but I respect your right to say it, in life and in Misplaced Pages. I think you should do the same with those valid POVs of political/linguistic issues in which you disagree. Misplaced Pages should present all approaches to social issues like this one, without qualifying either one, and without hiding the nuances of each one with over generalizations like "the majority" and "primarily". I will not revert your edit, at least to see if you can live what you preach and engage in a honest debate so that we can reach a consensus, instead of putting fire into an edit war. Please avoid the diatribes and the arguments of my purported motivations and intentions and how messed up my brain is. --the Dúnadan 03:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I propose clarifying the article. Is our responsibility avoid confusing wikipedia readers.

And we cannot confuse 'bias' with 'concepts salad': this article talks about two very diferent concepts. Yup, concepts. Mixing two concepts as this article does is misleading the information. Because this is not an article about the history-evolution of the 'Catalan Countries' term. So we have to create one article "linguistic" and another one "politic". I think "linguistic" meaning is already defined inside Catalan language, we only need to explain what is the Catalan Countries as "politic". Minor references could be added if the two concepts are related (as this case).

We know that the main meaning of PPCC is politic. And it's in the everyday (f.e. whats the weather like?). As we can see in the Enciclopèdia Catalana's GREC:

• (definition) Catalan countries 1
• (geomorphology) Catalan countries 2...

The content, the core, is not about linguistics. The article reflects what is Catalan Countries. What every catalan perceives in the common language as Països Catalans (search in the mass media). Following the entire structure (climate, fauna, landscape, population, economy...) and you'll find the exact meaning. An explanation at the end of "definition" talking about its evolution. That's the place for pseudo-linguistic info (because it isn't a linguistic article nor about evolution about the concept).

We have to work it in the right place... each different concept. And using the right words defining the concepts. Which's the term in english language for the catalan linguistic zone? Catalan countries? Catalan-speaking region? Catalan language map? We could ask a professional. And if you want, we could create a new article with that rationale title defining the concept with two lines plus an illustration (it hasn't no more content):

"All these areas may be known as Catalan Countries (Catalan: Països Catalans), a denomination based on cultural affinity and common heritage, that have also had a subsequent political interpretation but no official status" (Catalan language)

Because that's the Països Catalans definition in linguistic meaning with minor references. Two lines.

BTW Have you read "John Fuster" in Grec article? Oi que fica "John Fuster" =P ???? --Owdki 03:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, first of all I apologize beforehand about the misunderstanding. For you have to have gotten me wrong regarding my comments on your Cat/En bilingual skills. You mention in your post above me suggesting that your brain is messed, when, actually, I was only trying to explain (just read it again under a colder light and you'll see) why you don't feel the so called oddity based on your bilinguism and you coping perfectly with both languages, unlike English-only speakers. Since you mention this so called brain-mess no less than three times and, besides, you mention "useless diatribe" and similarly somber vocabulary, I assume you feel slightly offended, that is why I apologize and that is why this clear up. I hope my explanation is ok with you and we are good in this part.

Me living up for what I preach? I'll sure do. I preach "Mountolive, you better fuck off when people gets too stubborn for your, otherwise, brittle wikipatience" and I will surely do when they do get like that. At this point of my wikiexperience (I guess I'm at maturity, no longer really excited about it, but rather sadly aware about its limits and methodologic handicaps) I don't have any will to try to convince anyone who doesn't want to be convinced. I have learnt over past "honest debates" this is as useless as very much time consuming. So I'll try not to be caught there once again.

So, unfortunatelly, this also means that I can't promise I will "engage in honest debate so that we can reach a consensus". You were present along myself in past wikiexperiences of this sort. They have showed me that, unfortunatelly, too often this is nothing but wishful thinking empty rethorics: some people like being debating about something, and they do so in good faith, but then it ends up being debating for the sake of debating, as loooooooooooong talk pages as you wish, because, in the end, they just won't give up nor even accept "primarily"-like compromises. In other words, I may be done already with this, or may be soon. Then people will edit at ease here without me bothering them, and I will try to stay focused on more productive stuff.

Now, after my -totally unrequested- systemic "diatribe" if you may, let me get down to the particular. I indeed agree with you in that generalizations are, generally speaking, no good. However, if there is some "consensus to be reached" whatsoever, we may have to reach out for generalizations such as "primarily Catalan nationalists". I agree that "Catalan nationalists"-only wasn't so fair, but I know quite well that this concept is flagged these days specially by Catalan nationalists, also those within the Academic community. Now, to put it short, I guess it is a matter of other editors's will to reach a consensus and, therefore, acknowledge this fact which I think is a cold one, or, alternatively, not conceding to that but rather asking for "references" on this claim. I won't bother in bringing references proving this or that "horchata is made in Valencia" as someone said once. I have more interesting and intellectually challenging stuff to do.

I don't thing neither you nor Owdki nor myself we are so far in the linguistic/politic distinction. I just think the article needs this distinction to be more starkly put and then everybody will be happier about the article. I will be off for most of the coming week, so don't take my silence as "menfotisme", at least not yet. I won't make assumptions on how the article would look like if you edit, Dúnadan. Actually, if I made any assumptions, I'd say it would look better after your edit, for you are not one of those acting with an agenda (the only thing is that, in my humble opinion, you tend to be rather stiff if challenged).

You're right, Owdki, John Fuster...that's a good one! :D

Cheers.

Mountolive | Talk 11:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

English translation of the term

• Catalan Countries is a common English translation of Països Catalans. As it has been said, it is the term used by the English version of the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana.
• Països Catalans is used outside of Catalonia and Valencia. For example in this web Catalogne-Nord.com .
• Comunitat Catalànica and Bacàvia are certainly much less used than Països Catalans. Just have a Google test and see that "Bacàvia OR Comunitat Catalànica" has 850 results and that the last option has more that 2.000.000
• I do not see any misuse of the terms. The former Kingdom of Valencia is an accurate sentence. Roussillon is not "the correct" term, it is as official as Northern Catalonia and less specific.
• If you think that it is not neutral add {{POV}}, but {{globalize}} is not appropriated into a geographical article which obviously will be focused in that territory.
• I am sorry if I have erased Maurice27's good faith edits, but I do not have the feeling of having done it. Please, remind me where, and I will try no to repeat it.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)~

Well, you are dealing with a number of topics here but since the name of the section you opened is "English name", let me focus on this one.

Sorry for for the self-quote, but I'm forced to make it because your post above is completely missing the point of all these reasons provided already in previous posts of mine, which, for the moment, remain unchallenged and so I have to re-state here:

So, once again and just in case the above is not clear. "Catalan Countries" is an unfortunate and, what is worse, misleading translation, or so I think based on, at least, a double reasoning:

1. Because the term "Countries" is not used in English in this fashion meaning "Countries sharing same language", for example, Germany, Austria and the Swiss German cantons are not any "German countries" whatsoever in English.

The only usage I can think about in English which could be if only close to the intended by "Catalan Countries" would be the one of Low Countries, in this regard, this is how the relative article reads:

also, note the fact that this is not about language or culture, but geography, and translating a well-established "Nederlanden" Dutch concept, as old as the Netherlands themselves, while the "Països Catalans" moniker was born in the second half of the 20th century, for not to mention that this moniker is fiercely contested in some areas which are presumably included in it. And this makes some difference as well.

2. Because, as Boynamedsue points out, neither Valencia, the Balearics nor even (sorry about that) blessed Catalonia are "countries" in the English language sense (no offense meant to nationalists here, si us plau).

Therefore, to say "Catalan Countries" in English is at least doubly misleading and definitely confusing to any given editor not acquainted with the subtleties of Catalan nationalism (and, believe it or not, there are a few millions over there who are not familiar with those).

SMP, just saying that the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana translates it as "Catalan Countries" is not a right answer to all the above. Not at all.

It actually looks more like if we were trying to justify one wrong with another wrong. In this regard, a non Catalan encyclopedic source should be quoted, not one who is precisely from Catalonia and may incurr in the same mistake we are incurring here in the translation.

Just please don't lose sight that I am not saying that the article should be erased or something like that. I am only saying that its name should be changed to "Països Catalans", that's all.

Otherwise, this will remain as an odd concept, directly translating a minoritary and controversial Catalan concept, therefore, we shouldnt be surprised if the template {globalize} "this deals primarily with Catalonia and may lack a worldvision" is heading this article.

As far as I am concerned (except for the map with the so called "Catalan Sea", that should also be resolved) all it takes to de-tag it is change its name to "Països Catalans". In other words, not messing with a difficult-to-impossible to translate concept but respecting the original name in Catalan, like it's made in Anschluss. Is it so difficult for you guys? It shouldnt be unless some editors want to take advantage from this misleading concept to enhance their political views on the subject by abusing the translation.

Mountolive | Talk 21:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

For me personally would be a fine solution to:

• Move the article to "Països Catalans".
• Create a redirect from "Catalan Countries" to "Països Catalans"
• Remove the template
• Start the article saying: "Països Catalans (roughly translated in English as Catalan Coutries, see Països Catalans#English translation) ..." and then add a short section explaining better the translation. Or instead of "English translation" section, we could add an analogous "Description of the name" section or whatever where a detailed NPOV text explains what Països Catalans means or can mean (from "País" as a Country until "País" just as a "territory", deppending on who uses it). I think this could be a consensus solution.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 21:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to say I disagree with both Mountolive arguments and with Xtv's proposal. Besides citing himself and other users -which cannot comply by any standards to WP:CITE- as well as by the use of reasoning on how bad the term sounds in a language that is not even his mother tongue, what valuable references can Mountolive bring to the discussion? Even if we disagree and claim how illogical, odd or irredentist the concept is, are we supposed to discredit by our mere reasoning what the Academia uses (including prestigious universities like the University of Kent in the United Kingdom, an English speaking institution) and what is a common colloquial term? (See: , , , . , , , , , , , , , ).

Please let's discuss about how we can neutralize the article, enhance it, bring some history of the evolution of the term,its different connotations, is acceptance or vehement rejection due to its political implications in the different regions that speak Catalan and in other regions as well, but let's not waste time arguing about how the Academia and everybody else that uses the term in English is wrong, because according to my own perception of how the English language should be, it is grammatically incorrect.

As a side note, I strongly recommend to do some thorough research of the term from all users (including myself) before engaging in an endless argument. For starters, please Mountolive note that the "moniker" was not created in the second-half of the 20th century, but in the late 19th century as a linguistic and cultural concept (please refer to some of the links provided above). The political connotation that it acquired in time was further advanced by the Valencian Joan Fuster in the second-half of the 20th century, and it became widely used -and liked or vehemently hated- onwards. But it did not originate in that time nor by him. --the Dúnadan 22:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Dúnadan, what can I say? I admit not caring too much about wikirules other than good faith. I have a zero tollerance for what I am prone to identify as wikilawyering which, I know, won't take me anywhere these days around here.

Yes, I quoted myself (and another user) because a third user had missed magnificently the points this user and myself had exposed (how would we say in Valencian...er, sorry,....Catalan "¿de dónde vienes? manzanas traigo" ?)

Actually Dúnadan misses my whole reasoning olympically once again and apparently reduces it to a matter of taste: all my scheming, bla bla bla and examples above did such little impression on him. The fact is that I am too lazy to reformulate all my bla bla bla in other words again, because apparently they will be missed again. That is why I decided quoting my own post above (is that a real quote? well, it's more like a copy-paste, actually).

I could start here again saying that Boynamedsue (and so many others in this talk page) are English native speakers who find it odd. The problem is not any so called oddity, but the confussion or mislead implied. I could say all that in different words, but I am lazy. I could copypaste it again, but it will be reduced to a matter of taste.

So, Dúnadan, if you feel more comfortable with all the nuances implied by this ill fated translation, if you think it is better than reducing it to its pristine original Catalan, then I guess there is little to discuss.

By the way, I have said in many ways (for people who want to read it) what's wrong with me and "Catalan Countries" (and so other users have done in this talk page, look at quite older posts), but I still dont know why you Dúnadan think that "Catalan Countries" is better than "Països Catalans", when all we would do is redirecting the whole thing to the same article. Since I bothered in explaining my point (which is not just a matter of taste, even if that's the idea you got) it would be good that you explained us (since Xtv seems to agree with me) why you think that "Catalan Countries" is a better name for this article than "Països Catalans".

Oh, I knew Països Catalans was used for the first time by the late 19th century, so please excuse me for having stolen those 50 years of life (do you think I am one of those "starters" hehehe, if only you knew about my background, you'd be surprised ;). It is that I just thought that it wasn't worth mentioning, since this first usage was a one hit wonder (vanished completely until Mr. "John Fuster" picked it up in the 60s and that's when the term gained relevance).

<should we also change his article in wikipedia to John Fuster from Joan Fuster as well because the Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana in English quotes him like that? mhhh...>

But those extra 50 years can be important to someone and so I appologize for the omission if anyone felt offended....ok, ok, maybe 60 or 70 years! (don't chastise me for that, please).

So, Dúnadan, how do you want me to engage in one of those never ending debates and "contributions" when you wont even agree in using a more neutral name for the article? You are asking about "neutralizing" the article but...could it possibly get more neutral than respecting the original?

Some other night I said that, even though I find you kinda stiff (well, really stiff, actually) I don't think, though, that you work on a (Catalanist) agenda here. And that is good. But, given your recurrent refusal of proposals coming from me, I guess you just dont like me, which it's ok, but, this said, well, I guess under this light I have little else to contribute around here.

Ah, by the way: I 100% agree to Xtv's proposal. He and I, we return fire from different POVs, but it's been a pleasure working with him so far, we have mutually compromised a few times. Thanks for that. If only everyone was like you, I would have a higher opinion of wikipedia, just like in the old days....

Mountolive | Talk 23:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The only reason why I opposed your argument is because you have failed to brought any single source to back up your reasoning. You seem to forget that this is not a forum, but an encyclopedia, and there are dozens of Academic books and newspapers, like the ones I provided above -which I truly expect you explored- that make use of the term, many of them reputed Academic sources such as the New York Times or the University of Kent which can hardly be accused of using grammatically incorrect oddities in the English language or of being politically biased. Please, if you actually want to end this diatribe in a constructive way, then, please review the links above. Do a thorough research of the term in your local library as I do so too. Then we can peacefully discuss. But please do not go back to citing yourself and other users as if that were valid sources to prove how Academics are wrong in their use of the term and that we are right to correct them.

No, I don't dislike you, in fact I like you, because in spite of disagreeing -and sometimes ignoring some basic Wikipedian guidelines such as WP:CITE and WP:OR-you have never insulted anyone, nor have you violated Etiquette nor any rules of conduct, and that is very commendable. I even commented on your constructive attitude, compared to other users, with Owdki in his talk page.

No, there is no Catalanist motivation behind my actions. In fact, if you had bothered to look at my contributions in Viquipèdia, you'd have seen that there some extremist users think I am Estatista -the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of- simply because I defend neutrality. Neutrality means presenting the scenarios and all its nuances , positions, antagonism and, if you like , POVs , properly referenced by reputed sources. That is what I've done there and that is why I try to do here.

Now, if you want to take the time to actually discuss the issue with a proper background research, then I am willing to discuss. First, the name Catalan Countries is used by reputed sources, therefore, it is not an "rough" nor an "incorrect" translation. Therefore, if you wish to move this article and rename it as Països Catalans, as Xtv proposed, I would agree to it, but it is not a "rough" translation, but the translation. Secondly, if you bother to review the sources I provided, you'd see that there is an alternative, though rarely used translation: Catalan Lands. Therefore, the introduction could say: "The Països Catalans in English Catalan Countries or occasionally Catalan Lands refers to....". I still fail to see the need to rename if the article if "Catalan Countries" is the term used in English by Academicians, but with a proper introduction, it may work. Thirdly, based on some of the sources above, and not on yours or my opinion, I would propose a section on the true historical origin, as well as the original meaning -very much used and not "forgotten" (unless you have another source contradicting mine to prove that it was forgotten and "vanished"), as a linguistic and cultural term. Then expound about the political connotation it acquired in the 1930's, and its acceptance by Valencian and Balearic circles, as well as the vehement rejection and opposition by other Valencian and Balearic circles. Then, we can talk about Joan Fuster's promotion of the term in subsequent decades and the acceptance/opposition of the term. Then we can talk about the current perception of the term both linguistically and politically. Sources abound. So, if you want to stop the "cata-brawling" as you call it, then please, I kindly ask you, let's do some research, all users coming from opposing "POVs" so that we can write a thorough neutral article that includes all positions and approaches without qualifying either one (this is right and that's wrong), but stating the issue properly referenced, without any opinions from our own that try to discredit Academics or Historians.

--the Dúnadan 01:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Could we apply your arguin to mouse≠mouse? Two concepts in a single article, with a "section on the true historical origin, as well as the original meaning -very much used and not "forgotten" (unless you have another source contradicting mine to prove that it was forgotten and "vanished"), as a biologic term. Then expound about the "software" connotation it acquired in the 1970's". Do you get the point? Does anybody get it? The GREC! --Owdki 09:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ludicrous. The arguing can be applied to the evolution of a single term (like republic) and not to two separate objects albeit homophones. Btw I didn't see any "political" definition of Països Catalans, from the GREC. In fact, they simply define them as the països de llengua i cultura catalanes. Again, it is first about linguistics, not politics. Some people do take the term to advocate for a political entity, but that is not the only use of the term. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I can't understand you. Do you mean PPCC is just a single term (like republic) and not two separated concepts (like mouse≠mouse)? Do you mean that this is an article about the "evolution of the PPCC term"? Thus it's necessary to elevate a cross-reference in the hierarchy converting it in main concept inside the article, supposing that we are talking about the politic concept. Because I don't know what we are talking about (politics or linguistics).

After reading the GREC, can you answer the question "what is PPCC"?. A person? An animal? A machine? A country? A concept which belongs to catalan nationalism? Remember, (as James Brown says "please, please, please"), that we are talking about a basic nationalistic concept, so we need clarify it. --Call me Elmo 23:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Most of the articles in encyclopedias not only define a concept (that is what a dictionary does) but make a more thorough presentation of them. That is why, whether we talk about a particular term (republic), a belief (Christianity), an institution (World Bank) or a country (Spain), there are sections regarding etymology, history, evolution of the concept/term/belief etc, that go beyond a simple definition. That is why, an encyclopedic article of the Catalan Countries should, naturally, include a section on who coined the term and the evolution of it. (Please refer to the links provided below in the subsequent discussions).

Now, after reading the GREC, if you ask me what are the Catalan Countries (from the entry Catalonia ), they state: "...el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, , els Països Catalans". So, the Catalan Countries are "the group of territories of Catalan language and culture". No political concept whatsoever. Simply a linguistic and cultural concept. Following your link, these territories have a geographic location (of course). Out of this concept, some groups advocate for the existence of a national identity and thus take the term to the political arena. But, again, that isn't neither the origin, nor the only contemporary meaning of the word. Many linguists, published books, American newspapers and British universities (see many links provided below) use the term in English in the linguistic/cultural sense and do not advocate for any political separatism. I hope that answers your questions.

--the Dúnadan 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You say "...there are sections regarding etymology, history, evolution of the concept/term/belief etc, that go beyond a simple definition..."

That's true and it happens in all the examples (republic, Christianity, World Bank and Spain). Because you're using singular number (grammatical number): "of the concept/term/belief". The problem is: we have one term (word) and two meanings (concepts) here.

And we have a big problem ("that go beyond a simple definition"), because we cannot define both concepts at the same time without falling in that which you call "bias". This is really ludicrous (and a blatant need of two articles).

In your examples you won't find two disciplines mixed as here. For this purpose, I think, we have disambiguation pages. I mean:

• republic: term (word) corresponding to politic concept (form of government).
• Christianity: term (word) corresponding to religious concept (belief).
• World Bank: term (word) corresponding to banking concept (financial institution).
• Spain: term (word) corresponding to geographic concept (country).

You'll understand better if we use two terms: "catalan-speaking areas" and "Països Catalans". How can I define it if I don't know what concept is explained here?

• Catalan Countries: term (word) corresponding to nationalistic concept (politic idea-project) and linguistic concept (catalan-speaking world)

A blatant confusion that you can find in this talk page, around all discussions, e.g.:

• "I'd have no real problem with that. Elsewhere, we've used "Catalan-speaking world", but that is probably wrong here: the article is really about the (basically political more than academic) use of "paisos catalans". - Jmabel | Talk 06:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)"

• "I am going to remove the template as it is obviously geographically centered in the Catalan Countries.--SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)"

In SMP's comment, geographically, what Catalan Countries is cited (we have two different geographies, two maps)? If we are talking about linguistics, we can argue. But if we are talking about catalan nationalistic claims, no doubt: the tag is necessary (French and Spanish nationalities have their rights, the same Valencia or Balearic I., and their POV should be here too). The current structure restricts the POVs.

You've said:

• "I think this article has a particular point of view in defining Catalan Countries almost exclusively as a political and nationalistic/separatist concept. However, it is also a linguistic concept, I would even say, it is first a linguistic and cultural concept (not without controversy, of course), and then used by some politicians to advocate for nationalism and separatism. This article focuses exclusively on the latter and not on the former. --the Dúnadan 18:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)"

My proposal: split it in two articles, explaining each concept separately. Paradoxically, you seem to refuse this solution. And there is no logic reason to keep this salad. If we don't clarify it, we'll extend the current controversy to other articles by means of cross-references. Because catalan nationalism is linguistic, but not all linguistics are nationalist.

Now, the GREC article. I ask you "After reading the GREC, can you answer the question "what is PPCC"?". And I had linked my past comment.

For answer, in a mysterious act, you grab the Catalonia article in catalan instead of the Països Catalans article. Here is in catalan if you want: .

You say: "...el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, , els Països Catalans". But in your personal interpretation you forgot the verb: "inclou" (includes).

Thus, it doesn't answer the question "What is it": So, the Catalan Countries includes "the group of territories of Catalan language and culture". You're answering "what does it include".

What's the answer? The answer is: the "Catalan Countries" is a COUNTRY.

And... what's a country? It "is a political division of a geographical entity, a sovereign territory". But... the Catalonia Countries IS NOT a political division of a geographical entity nor a sovereign territory. Damn! It's politics! So it's necesary to define it as a "political project" or "nationalistic idea". Keeping on this ambiguity is to disrupt the POVs flow.

Now, please, read The Extent of the National Homeland: Els Països Catalans from this source (John Etherington, Doctor en Ciencias Políticas UAB; Profesor ayudante del Departamento de Ciencia Política y Derecho Público; investigador adscrito al proyecto Euroregión Pirineo-Mediterráneo... nada sospechoso): "The limits of the national territory are, of course, a sine qua non of any nationalist movement...".

The origin of this term has a deep nationalistic intention ("wich in our eyes appear to be part of a whole, as members of a nationality", Bienvenido Oliver, quoted in Fuster, 1978:55). Why no ethnic discourse as basque nationalism? Why did Benvingut Oliver and John Fuster choose language instead of ethnicity as principal element of nationality? John Fuster explained and developed the reasons.

May be we could create a new section: there are many ":" (I count nine). --Call me Elmo 22:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to be torracollons now but I made my proposal assuming that "Catalan Countries" is really odd and it's just a "Catalan" translation of "Països Catalans". If this term is generaly used in English (as in NYT), then I wouldn't see any reason to call this article with the Catalan name instead of the already used English one. So, to sum up, I would say that my proposal deppends "on the number and quality" of sources... Let's start the race, who can give more sources! (is there any source in English who calls this territory by the Catalan name as it happens with "Anschluss"? Perhaps if you (Mountolive) find reliable sources in English in which the term is used also in Catalan, it would be a reason to think that this translation is really odd and we have to preserve the original words.

Let's remark that I have already arrived to a point in which I don't really care if the article is called "Catalan Countries", "Països Catalans" or "l'Hòstia en Vinagre". I think it is much more important the content and stop loosing our time discussing about such nonsense, so I'll support both positions.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it could be either way, as long as the article is truly neutral. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Xtv, this is probably the most intelligent edit you have done in last 48H! Let's see if your good faith comment is mirrored with good improvements on your part inside the article. --Maurice27 12:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sources provided, while being perfectly valid, don't compromise, in my opinion, any of my concerns expressed above (which go beyond the "doesn't sound like good English" tenet which someone tried to reduce them to). Sources with a strong Catalan descent may be incurring in the same translation mistake I mention, besides, Catalan-unrelated sources may well have used this very same article as a reference or background (not in vain, this article is the FIRST entry you get if you google "Catalan Countries"...isnt that at least suspicious?).

Both Xtv and Dúnadan seem, if only half-heartedly, ready to accept my proposal of changing the article to Països Catalans. I have no problem in doing so as it has been articulated by Xtv a few posts higher.

Then, following the new "make love, not (edit) war" policy implied by Maurice's (who apparently just converted to vegetarianism), I propose indeed making this change. As a return, I would half-heartedly conceed deleting the "primarily by Catalan nationalists" part disputed by Dúnadan, as long as where it now reads "Catalan countries" elsewhere in the article reads, alternatively, either "Països Catalans" or the more descriptive "Catalan speaking territories".

Is that ok? Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 15:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It has been proved that the use of Catalan Countries is not complitely odd. So I accept your offer but with the alternance of either "Països Catalans", the more descriptive "Catalan speaking territories" but also (not only) "Catalan Coutries". And as I said, if this is after a section where the translation and original meaning is explained, it should be no probem for the reader to misunderstand the words.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Alas! I had asked all users to please discuss with sources and not opinions in Maurice's extraordinary Memorandum of Understanding, to no avail. True, were are not writing Britannica -as someone aptly pointed out. And because were are not writing Britannica -and hence we are no experts or authorities- Misplaced Pages has set up three core policies to ensure the quality of the articles: WP:V, WP:NPV and WP:NOR. These policies, let me quote, "... are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus." That is why I find it hard to argue when users simply "care less for wiki rules" and use mere opinions or subjective appreciations. Misplaced Pages is not a forum when anybody can write whatever they want as long as they assume good faith. I have argued my point ad nauseum backed up with references, only to be "olympically" ignored or criticized by users who simply state their opinions.

I am sorry if Mountolive feels that I summarize his position as simple "it sounds bad in English". Can you actually summarize your solidly referenced arguments against the English nomenclature of "Catalan Countries" in three simple bullet points? I have read and re-read them back and forth. I will quote them and offer as a response not what "I think" (like you had asked) but what I researched or what I can back up with reputable sources, which is an entirely different thing. And alas! I find myself repeating my argument over and over, and who knows if they will be ignored again, while another accusation of me "ignoring" is said. If any other of your arguments is missing, please add it to the list:

• it is odd (without sources, and hence, no offense, that is "taste")
• doesn't make sense in English, why? Because the use of country in this case makes no sense "whatsoever in the English language sense", in spite of the fact that I have argued, here and in other debates -only to have the links to English dictionaries blatantly ignored- that country in English does refer, let me quote to a "region with a special character", ,"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)", " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions by a distinctive population" , "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" , should I add more, or will valid reputable sources be blatantly ignored again?
• the same term has not been used in other languages, even though lack of existence does not imply incorrectness; moreover,"French countries" is used in a similar way to refer to French-speaking countries , , , , , .
• the term is not encyclopedic and/or not used by the Academia, even though I provided plenty of sources like newspapers (like the New York Times) essay books (with "read-inside" pages of the term from Amazon for your convenience), and universities (like the University of Kent) which use the term. I wonder, has anybody actually bothered to check those links -even if out of unbelief to make sure that I am not making anything up- or did I just do the research in vain?!
• used by sources of Catalan descent which incur in a mistake (categorical personal judgment), and Catalan-unrelated sources use this article as their only reference (statement of fact). I am pretty sure that neither the New York Times, nor the University of Kent, nor many of the books I quoted are of "Catalan-descent", and being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English.
• and finally the term is reduced to its political and nationalistic implication, whereas many of the sources I provided above use the term in its original and still valid meaning which is imply a linguistic and cultural region. Sources abound. True, some groups have taken the term to advocate for a national identity or to call for separatism-and hence the hatred it has acquired in some Spanish sectors- but that is not the only current meaning, nor the only "subtlety" of the term. By reducing it to mere "subtleties of nationalism" we ignore the subtleties of the linguistic meaning of the term, advocated by many others who are not on either extreme of the political spectrum (love or hate).

Call me stiff, a brick or whatever other adjective you can think of, but I find it against all Misplaced Pages's principles to cast away perfectly reputable sources in order to reach a "compromise" in which the arguments based on opinions have been proven wrong with sources. But if that is the only way to end this debate, then so be it, rename it at will. The article will suffer from the quality required by the core principles of Misplaced Pages, which are being ignored, and I will have little else to add or contribute in that endeavor.

--the Dúnadan 23:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I take the approximately 60 lines of text above from you guys as a No to my proposal. I'm sorry guys, to have bothered you (specially Dúnadan, who is a keen writer). It is that I just thought that I read somewhere

Let's remark that I have already arrived to a point in which I don't really care if the article is called "Catalan Countries", "Països Catalans" or "l'Hòstia en Vinagre". I think it is much more important the content and stop loosing our time discussing about such nonsense, so I'll support both positions.--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 09:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it could be either way, as long as the article is truly neutral. --the Dúnadan 16:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

but now, having read the more recent posts, I guess that was a dream of mine (which makes sense, due to the high hours weekend editting times we are used to around here). That is clearly not the more appropiate timing to write in talk pages and so those impromptu posts of yours which I dreamt about. I see them now completely outdated and replaced by the old, more firm, "embolica que fa fort" position (no, no, no Dúnadan, don't cry wolf, spare yourself the reply to the "embolica que fa fort" thing: that was a joke! :)

Well, I didnt want to make it sound as blackmail or something back in the day when I offered my compromise, besides I thought that you guys were going to (if only half-heartedly) take my offer based on more cheerful posts of yours, and so I thought it wasn't necessary to state it. However, since we are back to business (if we ever quitted at all) I must say that I guess I will have to tag the article with {globalize}. 'Please dont take it personal, because it's not about you guys (I'm serious).

Dúnadan, as a matter of fact, you clearly outperform me in your willing to write and research here (my respect for that). Indeed, I am lazy to work out my own position, if I was paid, I would think it over (that must be my own Països Catalans cultural thing, ha, ha, -another joke). Being lazy is one thing, but the main point why I wont produce a roughly 40 lines text completing yours is because you keep missing my points (yes "olympically" ;).

Ok, I'll give you a taster of what I think only if you promise you'll just read it and think about it, I dont want you to lose your time producing a new reply to this. Promised? yes? ok, then. For example, think of TV3, a very reputable source and quite "official" (it's public, too). Using their sources, I could validly claim that the official name of the Comunitat Valenciana is País Valencià instead, for that's the only one they use. I could get very upset as well if you countered the validity of my various CCRTV (Catalunya Ràdio, etc) sources in this regard. Ok, since you promised you'd be listening, here's another one "being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English" you'll have to admit is no less of a "categorical personal judgement" of yours such as the one of mine you label like that.

Anyway, I consider the discussion on the "English translation" closed as from my side.

Once again, sorry to have bothered. Mountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 11:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

And blackmail it is: either we change the name to Països Catalans or you -without any base to claim why a translation would not be neutral- you will reinsert the tag. So, a translation -done by non-Catalan Academics- makes it non-neutral, doesn't it? Blackmail it is indeed, since you have been unable to prove that a name ceases to be neutral once it is translated to English. Do NYT and University of Kent need to be tagged as well? Ludicrous, but most of all, unethical on your part, and I am utterly disappointed at your position. If you do that I will most certainly request for mediation or arbitration.

Again, you olympically ignored all my reserach and sources. And please stop your spurious claims about me ignoring you because I did answer your arguments one-by-one in bullet points and even asked you to add more! But you didn't answer a single of my arguments above!! Only to claim that you could cite TV3 and compare it to the New York Times. But wait... doesn't TV3 fail to pass one of your requirements? Isn't it a source of "Catalan-descent"? Will you debate ethically by providing counter-arguments with proofs to my arguments with proofs? I am sorry if this comment carries a negative tone, but I am utterly surprised at the unethical position you are taking: no research, no intelligent arguments, simply blackmail. Maybe it was a dream of ours that you would actually read our arguments and debate accordingly.

It has always suprised me that no single user in Misplaced Pages -or no single Spanish citizen for that matter- has ever complained that es:País Vasco or Basque Country are improper translations of Euskal Herria, and that the Spanish país and the English country could not possibly be a proper translation in the Spanish/English sense of the word. But when it comes to País Valencià or Països Catalans they vehemently and strongly complain that those cannot possibly be translated as "country" ignoring the fact that they are translated as such by Academia, as I have proven above: not TV3, but non-Catalan Academia. Maybe you should insert the tag at Basque Country and Basque Country (historical region), and why not, at es:País Vasco? Following your argument -if any- they cannot possibly be right. (Just to save you some time, the entry in Britannica -a reputable source- is indeed Basque Country).

--the Dúnadan 14:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

While being a keen editor as I said above, that, excuse me, doesn't give you any merit whatsoever to call me a blackmailer or "ludicrous but most of all unethical".

Please, Dúnandan, keep your lessons on ethics for the guys in your wikiproject, if they are ready to take them. I am not.

So far, I think I never called you any names other than "stiff" (you called yourself a "brick", to which I have nothing to object, by the way)

I can obviously insert the tag if I see fit, even if you don't like it.

Who do you think you are? Being THE Dúnadan is not so impressive to me. Actually, I wanted to hear what was your opinion before deciding on the tag, and, after hearing yours, I am more tempted than ever to place it right now. I probably will soon; when the disgust your accusations are causing me is over and I am more settled, I'll check again with myself and make the decission. If I did, yes, please, take it to arbitration, mediation, whatever. For sure you are much more familiar than me in those wishy-washy procedures.

In the meantime, I would really appreciate it if you sticked very much up your arse your "blackmailer", "ludicrous", "not intelligent", "unethical" and else rant. Thanks. ŴMountolive | Oh My God, Whatever, Etc. 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's back off and take a deep breath. I said your argument was blackmail (and you yourself said "I don't want it to sound like blackmail but...", so the label is yours not mine, I simply said, "yes it is indeed"). I also said your argument was ludicrous (i.e. not making sense). Your argument. A person cannot be ludicrous (never heard anyone use that adjective to refer to a person!) And all blackmail is unethical. Please don't personalize your arguments so that you can claim that I call you a blackmailer. The arguments are what they are, but if you felt insulted I apologize. Moreover, I will not respond to the extremely inappropriate and unacceptable comment about sticking things up my a$%s. If you cannot control yourself, I can. I will criticize your arguments but I will never use inappropriate foul language and or comments directly to you, not in Misplaced Pages and not in real life.

Most importantly, you still fail to answer any of my questions. How many times do I have to ask them? Five times? Please tell us why do you reject the dictionary definitions that I provided that prove that "country" is not an oddity? Why do you reject NYT and the University of Kent as valid sources for the neutral use of the term? Why do you do not oppose labels such as French countries or Basque Country but vehemently oppose Catalan Countries based solely on the "inappopriate translation" of the term "país"? (If there are political impliciations, then they must be discussed in the article). Why does translating a term make it not neutral and hence if it is in English a tag is necessary, but not if it is in Catalan? Why do you still claim that the term is used only by Catalans when I have provided reserach books, American newspapers and University syllabi that prove otherwise? Do you want to insert a tag, you need to justify it. We offer a counter-argument, then offer counter-counter arguments. But simply saying, I will insert it if I see fit, without engaging in a debate is not appropriate.

Let's take a breath. This is not the place to make accusations nor insults about one another, but about arguments. Do you want to criticize my arguments? Be my guest, do it, and do it by solidly backing your position up with an honest neutral reserach. That is what were are all supposed to be doing here. --the Dúnadan 17:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

o_O ETHIC!!! "This is not the place to make accusations": it's a nice sentence to write here. --Call me Elmo 23:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Garrigues

I am currently proposing that the Garrigues page should be replaced by the content now found on the Garrigues (disambiguation) page and the the material presently on the Garrigues page should be moved to a new page to be titled Les Garrigues, Catalonia If you have the time I would appreciate your comments on the Discussion page at Garrigues. I hope you will agree. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

the tag

well, hoping to set no precedents whatsoever, I did as Dúnadan told me and I bothered to visit that place called "local library" for some references.

The result is negative: "Catalan Countries" is not in Britannica. It doesnt seem to be in their online edition either. Its translation is not either in Espasa or the Spanish version of Larousse (arguably, this means that it is not in the French version, even though I admit this may be a "categorical personal judgement", per Dúnadan's good usage of terms) Reversely, it is present indeed at Gran Enciclopèdia Catalana (as we knew).

The conclussion I'm inferring is that the term is closely associated to Catalonia (GREC has it, everyone else dont) and does not represent a world view, just as the tag mentions.

Dúnadan may agree with me that the NYT or the University of Kent (it's Kent, right?) while both being most reputable organizations, neither of them is known for a particular insight or expertise on Catalan nationalism, its relevance, parlance, translations, or are the self-appointed agents to settle the relevance of Catalan homemade concepts internationally, their translations and else.

Besides, neither have an encyclopedical mission either, while Britannica, obviously, does.

The fact that when you google "Catalan Countries" the first entry you get is this very article we are discussin here should be, let me mention this once again, a source of concern with this translation which I think it's ill fated. I still think that this could well be behind of the usage made of this term by media and institutions (such as the NYT and others) which only go about this subject in a very much incidental hit-or-miss (miss?) way. This could be another "categorical personal judgment" of mine, ok, but replying to this one with a mere "being reputable institutions I really doubt they take our Wikipedian article as their only source to come up with that term in English" is, you may agree with me, no less of another "categorical personal judgement" of yours as well.

Moreover, we shouldnt lose sight that it is not me only who has deemed this translation as less-than-perfect or troublesome. A number of both English native speakers and non-native have expressed in older posts their concern with this translation. You may want to ask Boynamedsue, for example.

If someone thinks that the NYT and else have a more proper approach to the subject, that's ok, but that is no less of a "categorical personal judgment" as my own approach, which is that Britannica is much more relevant, since it is an enclyclopedia, and not just one more but I'd say it's the most reputable one.

I will restore the tag for these reasons (the map with the so-called "Catalan Sea" is another reason -yet a secondary one, I wouldnt like to be stiff myself).

This said, I'd like to remark that I keep open my offer to rename this to "Països Catalans" as expressed above. As long as this is done, then I'd have no problem with the article as it is now nor in removing the now infamous tag. Also, in this regard, I wanted to remark once again that Dúnadan, who defended "Catalan Countries", he also said he could be agreeable as well to my proposal, being this windfall of his the responsible for the current controversy.

Dúnadan, I have made as you did, looked for references and I think all this I just expressed above is, at least, a respectable aproach to the matter. I would like also to note the evil nature of having to look for something to prove it doesnt exist, which amounts to looking for a blank. It is quite more easy, you may agree with me, to google something you think it exists and then collect the results without questioning the source's validity.

Thanks • Mountolive 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Ditto! --Maurice27 (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I think we have here a "conceptual false friends" case. But first, some notes. Dúnadan links (review, amazon links are broken, and The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939) is repeated):

• GREC : The Catalan Countries, Catalan Hyperencyclopaedia (catalan context)
• RECERCAT : The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939), by Arnau Gonzàlez i Vilalta (catalan context)
• UNIVERSITY OF KENT: HISPANIC STUDIES, Catalan Countries

• Learning Catalan 2A : David García Sirvent (catalan context)
• Learning Catalan 2B : David García Sirvent (catalan context)

• RECERCAT : The Catalan Countries Project (1931-1939), by Arnau Gonzàlez i Vilalta (catalan context)
• UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO : Eva Juarros-Daussà, Assistant Professor in the State University of New York at Buffalo (catalan context)
• NEW YORK TIMES: Països Catalans as principal term, and in parentheses, the translation: Catalan Countries. The preferred term in the text is Països Catalans.
• GENCAT : CAMPAIGN TO PROMOTE THE USE OF CATALAN, Generalitat de Catalunya (catalan context)
• UNIVERSITAT RAMON LLUL : History of Catalonia, Enric Puig Giralt (catalan context)
• AMAZON : broken link
• EUROPEAN PARLAMENT (ERC doc) : Multilingualism in Europe: The Importance of Education, by Bernat Joan i Mari. Republican Left of Catalonia. (catalan context)
• AMAZON : broken link
• AMAZON : broken link
• AMAZON : broken link
• AMAZON : broken link

The only source out of catalan context is the NYT, and its wording gives relevance to Països Catalans (translation in parentheses).

But now, "conceptual false friends": Graham Pollock warns about this serious risk (beware of this guy). What means "conceptual false friends"?:

• "A related but more insidious danger is the conscious or unconscious tendentious translation of technical terms, especially when they are conceptual false friends. Globalization may be leading to an increasing consensus on the meaning of technical terms, but false conceptual cognates still exist. A literal translation of “the state,” for example, may give rise to misconceptions due to discrepancies between Western-based concepts of the state, which refer either implicitly or explicitly to Weber’s definition, and conceptualizations of the state by authors engaged in a critical reading of Western social science as applied to the social institutions of non-Western countries. What looks like “international” terminology may therefore be deceptive or, in extreme cases, an attempt to impose meanings from one culture on another. A word like “democracy,” which would seem to offer automatic equivalents, may turn out to require an explanatory footnote or—if it affects the way the reader is to view a concept throughout a work or article—a translator’s introduction Since the prevalence of technical terms is one of the prime distinguishing features of social science discourse, translators must take special care not only in rendering them but also in making their audience aware of them".

My POV: the best rendering, the original term "Països Catalans" (with translation in parentheses) for politic concept, and "Catalan-speaking world" for linguistic. --Call me Elmo 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Great analysis. • Mountolive 22:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Mountolive for your response and your evident change in attitude and most of all, language. It is noted and appreciated. Thanks for the bibliographic review. You brought into the discussion three sources -Britannica, Espasa and GREC. Britannica apparently does not mention the name (neither in Catalan or English) and the same goes for Espasa, unlike GREC, which you reject because it is a Catalan source. From that you argue, that if a reputable source as Britannica -heavily criticized before when I brought into the attention of several users that ituses the word "nationality"- does not mention the concept of Catalan Countries, then that means the concept does not represent a worldview.

Then you argue that neither NYT nor U of Kent are experts in Catalan nationalism -thus again reducing the concept of Catalan Countries to that of nationalism, and ignoring its linguistic use, a connotation that is very evident precisely in those two sources, one of which is an Academic one, much closer to a primary source than an encyclopedia (a tertiary source). But again, I am glad you bring out the virtues of Britannica; that would indeed settle many of the concerns at Talk:Catalonia, and the vehement opposition to the word "nationality" therein expressed, because it was "improper English" and not "encyclopedic". =)

So, I guess you answered some -not all- of my questions above. However, you still have not answered the rest of the questions, namely (1) Why does a translation of a term make it not neutral automatically? (2) Why did you (or do you) reject the dictionary definitions showed above that show a different conception of what you believe "country" means in English and that they are not false friends? (Thus making the literal translation as adequate as the Catalan original). I still fail to see why a term (that if you google in quotations you find more than 4,000 entries, so I guess it does not mean you are looking for a "blank") in Catalan is appropriate and why in English is ceases to be appropriate; and (3) why do you still reduce the Catalan Countries to an expression of nationalism and reject its valid use -by Academia- of a linguistic area? Isn't that leaning to a particular POV?

As for the use of the term "Catalan Sea", I do agree with you, that particular term does represent a particular POV, and not a worldview and it is, by no means, a common term in English usage. I propose that the map be changed.

And to answer to Owdki, I was about to write an extensive answer, but I rather keep it short. I am glad he provided sources. He is more than welcome to include them in the article. That is what NPOV is all about, to present all POVs. But when he claims that his particular POV, endorsed by his particular sources discredit all other equally valid -or more reputable- sources that other users presented, and therefore we are wrong, he violates NPOV. I already told him, and kindly asked him twice to contribute to building an article that presents all POVs. For many -and the sources that I provided prove- it is only a linguistic concept. (The same term, in English and in Catalan, not two different terms as he wants us to believe). For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature. The article should present both points of view. I don't oppose the inclusion of the fierce opposition and the accusations of its use under a nationalistic banner. But I do oppose when users try to reduce the article to a particular POV, by debasing other POVs that are equally valid, to claim that the term is merely a nationalistic moniker, when it is not so. And to why if an author is Catalan, he is automatically disqualified from being a valid source (which seems an ad hominem argument, or perhaps, ad regionem?), that further proves that other POVs -of non-nationalistic authors, whether Catalan or not- are being excluded from this article.

Happily, country and país are not false friends, as the many English dictionary sources that I provided above prove, whose definition of country as a region with cultural characteristics is strikingly similar to the Spanish and Catalan definitions. Just in case he missed them I will produce them again: "region with a special character", ,"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)", " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions by a distinctive population" , "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" So luckily we don't need to worry about the insidious danger of a tendentious translation, the is more than one meaning for country. ;-)

Finally, I when I provided the article of Catalunya instead of that of Països Catalans, I did so because Països Catalans was never defined politically -as you seem to imply- in the latter. But even though you claim that I missed the word "inclou", I suggest reading the article again. Well, let me write what it says, in Catalan, which I assume you speak,, referring to Catalonia, "Constitueix la part territorialment més extensa de l'anomenat Principat de Catalunya i inclou el nucli originari de tot el conjunt de terres de parla i cultura catalanes, els Països Catalans" Let me translate, "Catalonia constitutes the largest territorial section of the so-called Principality of Catalonia and includes the original nucleus of all the set of lands/territories of Catalan language and culture, the Catalan Countries". Which is the -tacit-subject of the sentence? Well, evidently Catalonia. I hope that by re-reading that sentence, you'll realize that the "inclou" refers to "Catalunya" and not to the "Països Catalans". Catalonia includes the nucleus (or core, center) of the Països Catalans, which are defined as the territories of Catalan language and culture. If that still doesn't make sense, take the sentence to a philology professor, I am sure he will show you who the subject of the sentence is, and that the direct object is the "territories of Catalan language and culture, the Catalan Countries".

As a PS, for the Amazon links, you need to be registered to read them, simply log in, and you will. If not, the books are: (provided to prove that the term is translated to English in several contexts)

• Evidence-Based Medicine Guideline p. 632
• The Film Festival Guide: For Filmmakers, Film Buffs, and Industry Professionals (Film Festival Guide), by Adam Langer, p. 228
• Politics of Language in the Spanish-Speaking World (The Politics of Language), by Clare Mar, p. 42

You might as well do a search of all books that contain the phrase "Catalan Countries" both at Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.

Cheers,

--the Dúnadan 02:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've bringed you references. What do you bring me? Accusations and vivacissimo tempo. I'm tempted to place a in your signing, because you seems to be far from Dúnedain's characteristics. I've touched only 2 points, Dúnadan: two concepts and term translation. There are still a looooot for discourse, so is extremely premature to say that anybody wants to reduce the article to a particular POV. So take it easy or take a breath. And meanwhile, remember: "I have actually invited you, Owdki and Mountolive to discuss with references, not with opinions and accusations". As Jimbo says "Be honest with me, but don't be mean to me. Don't misrepresent my views for your own political ends, and I'll treat you the same way". Entesus?

Now, go back to the PPCC. Firstable, my error: sorry. You're right. Sing with me: "my mind is playing tricks on me...". You should know that I lost all my eyelashes in a screen spontaneous combustion (searching, searching, searching, reading, reading, reading...). And I'm very disappointed because after that bigeffort you put the bold in the minor points: you've obviated the big ones. Sources: for what?

"For many -and the sources that I provided prove- it is only a linguistic concept. (The same term, in English and in Catalan, not two different terms as he wants us to believe). For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature. The article should present both points of view". I'll try to explain it clearly. But first, we must assume that we're talking in Catalan:

• 1. In Catalan there's a term: Països Catalans.
• 2. For many catalans it's only a linguistic concept
• 3. For others, it carries a nationalistic connotation in nature.

Now I'll grab, again, your comment and I'll rewrite it (I think the same as you):

• 1. In Catalan there's a term: Països Catalans.
• 2. It can be used in a linguistic context: linguistic concept.
• 3. It can be used in a politic context: politic concept.

Thus we find a fact, the meaning of the term Països Catalans depends on the context we use it, am I wrong?:

• people use "Països Catalans" in a linguistic context: e.g. L'Alguerès és un dialecte parlat als Països Catalans.
• people use "Països Catalans" in a politic context : e.g. Seguidament els informem del temps i les previsions pels Països Catalans. (=> yes, fent pais in the mass media, politic: process of national construction, you know the Joan Ferran affair, and , and ... like God it's everywhere)

That's why I asked you about mouse. For me it's very clear:

• people use mouse in a informatic context: e.g. I don't like the Apple round mouse.
• people use mouse in a biologic context: e.g The mouse is a mammal.

You won't find anybody claiming that this division is violating NPOV, or claiming their merging in one mouse article. Because yes, this would be really ludicrous.

I'm assuming here part of your POV. I don't think that Països Catalans is used in any case as a linguistic concept. Using it means "fer pais". So it is politic everytime. As I said, from the beginning it was used in a politic context , :

"The limits of the national territory ar, of course, a sine qua non of any nationalist movement, if it is to establish claims over and control a given territory. Such competing definitions of what constitutes the exent of the homeland of the Catalan people have been present in Catalan nationalism for well over a century, and it is to this that I now wish to turn".

"This fact, that, if we are not the first to discover, then no-one up until know has proclaimed it, throws unexpected light on our history and on the true character of the peoples that can be said to be the Catalan language, which in our eyes appear to be part of a whole, as members of a nationality" (=> this one from Benvingut Oliver, 1876)

Do you still think that the term have no politic connotations in its "birth"? Benvingut Oliver was not extraneous to the Renaixença and the nationalistic discussions of those years (1876). The same as Josep Narcís Roca i Farreras (1886). How to define a territoriality to build a nationality.

On the other hand the everyday in Catalonia shows you the most extended use of Països Catalans. Look it graphically:

• Països Catalans => maps ,
• Catalan-speaking world => maps ,

It's different. It is not the same. I cannot understand why the map which defines PPCC, as most people understands, is not in the article. Read, please, the reference or the GREC: it is explained clearly. What to do? Two diferent maps in the same article? Two introductions? Two definitions?

I don't know how to explain it clearer. I would like to know other users oppinions (Xtv, Casaforra, Maurice27, Mountolive...). May be I'm wrong. I dunno.

Regarding "why if an author is Catalan, he is automatically disqualified from being a valid source". Instead of getting amazed by the extreme coincidence that is "finding a catalan behind each translation", you reply "that further proves that other POVs -of non-nationalistic authors, whether Catalan or not- are being excluded from this article".

Well, my answer is clear: it could be accepted if our discussion have as objective to find how catalans translate Països Catalans to english, i.e. translations in a catalan context. But we are trying to elucidate the correct rendering of the terms in english.

"Conceptual false friends" is different than "false friends". And that is: may be in the english world is used "xxxxxxx-speaking world" or similar as the correct terms for the concept (defining territories in which a given language is spoken). Native english speakers have shown here their doubts.

That's about linguistic concept. I have no idea about the politic concept translation, that's why I prefer Països Catalans (as Nosaltres els valencians instead of "We the Valencian").

On the other hand: follow this link. Go to the section "Pujol and Fer país (Building a Country): 1964-1974". Dúnadan, I'm sure you use to hear Catalonia. But how many times have you heard Catalan Country? Now, "Cultural activism":

• "Jordi Pujol has also been closely associated with other projects for civil society, such as his contribution to the Enciclopèdia Catalana"

Ergo the GREC, as you can see, is closely associated with Jordi Pujol. Fent país, noi.

"I did so because Països Catalans was never defined politically -as you seem to imply- in the latter". Man, in 1886 (ten years after Oliver), Josep Narcís Roca i Farreras explained "Països Catalans" (in Catalan, because Oliver wrote "países catalanes" in lower case) as a politic concept. 121 years ago. There's a lot written about it in these 121 years.

Sorry. I'm exhausted. May be my mind beguins to play tricks on me. I'll welcome any other opinion. I think we are spending our time here for nuttin. --Call me Elmo 17:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Appendix- Semantic range of "country" and its validity as a translation of "pais"

In the current debate regading the validity of the translation of the Catalan "Paisos Catalans" to the English "Catalan Countries" the key issue is whether "Countries" is an adecuate rendering of the Catalan "Paisos". Posts above debate this issue, but they regularly do so as part of a raft of other issues, leading to confusion which in turn stops us from resolving the problem of this article's name. I have created this appendix so that we can discuss this topic without deviation.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

sources cited in support of "countries" = "paisos"

The argument that "countries" fills the same semantic slot as "paisos" has been advanced by Dunadan above. He infers (and if my appraisal is wrong, please correct me) that "country" can mean "region with a special character", therefore "countries" would mean "regions with a special character". External sources are presented to support this argument in this paragraph:

"Happily, country and país are not false friends, as the many English dictionary sources that I provided above prove, whose definition of country as a region with cultural characteristics is strikingly similar to the Spanish and Catalan definitions. Just in case he missed them I will produce them again: "region with a special character", ,"a particular geographical region of indefinite boundary (usually serving some special purpose or distinguished by its people or culture or geography)", " any considerable territory demarcated by topographical conditions by a distinctive population" , "an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature" So luckily we don't need to worry about the insidious danger of a tendentious translation, the is more than one meaning for country. ;-)"

This first of these references is from encarta:

5. region with special character: a region that is distinguished by particular characteristics or is associated with a particular activity, person, or group of people

Since this was rebel country, checkpoints were set up along the road.

The second from wordreference.com:

A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.

The third is from dictionary.com

A region, territory, or large tract of land distinguishable by features of topography, biology, or culture: hill country; Bible country.

The fourth is from Cambridge university press

Definition

noun

an area of land considered in relation to a particular feature:

Stratford-on-Avon is the capital of Shakespeare country. The empty roads make this area good cycling country.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Validity and Analysis of presented sources

These websites are all valid and, to a greater or lesser extent, respected sources. They more than meet the criteria of reliability needed for sources on wikipedia.

In each case an example of the structure is provided:

1. Since this was rebel country, checkpoints were set up along the road..

2. hill country; Bible country.

3. hill country; Bible country.

4. Shakespeare country, cycling country.

In none of the above cases is an article used with "country", and it is always modified with a noun functioning as an adjective. In all these cases "country" is an uncountable noun.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Conclusion: Relevance to translation of Paisos Catalans as Catalan Countries

It has been argued that the above sources support the translation of "Paisos" as "Countries" in the phrase "Catalan Countries". The reasoning being that the various components of the "Paisos Catalans", although not meeting the normal English definition of "countries", satisfy this secondary definition of "a region characterised by a certain quality or feature"(please see above quote by Dunadan).

A brief look at the structure will show that this can not possibly be the case here. All the above uses are uncountable nouns, the CUP (the most trustworthy of the sources cited) explicitly states this to be so. The English neologism Catalan countries, however, uses the plural meaning that, by definition, it is not the same structure as the one described in the above sources.

Unless further supporting evidence is provided, I feel we are safe in discounting "Catalan Countries" as a semantically accurate rendering of "Paisos Catalans" in English. The only way that this might not be true is if "Paisos", in this specific instance, also means the collection of defined regions with actual or potential individual (NOT collective) sovereignty, which is the meaning of "Countries" in English.

This conclusion (though not the analysis above it) is opinion drawn from fact, rather than fact itself, still I feel that it puts to bed any dispute as to whether Catalan Countries is either good English or a good translation.

The only way I see that Catalan Countries should remain the title of this article is if we decide that the term is already so widespread in English that we are reflecting English usage, otherwise it must be left in the original Catalan, with an explanation in the first paragraph.

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting WP:OR. I am sure the New York Times and the University of Kent would benefit from it, being English speaking institutions who make use of a English neologism that is semantically inaccurate, according to the above. It is not my place to argue or disqualify an OR. But I will give my comments.

• CUP does say that the definition of Country as Land is , arguably, uncountable. From that you extrapolate that the rest of the dictionaries also imply that the noun is uncountable. As far as I can tell, that is the core -and probably the only- argument. Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not.
• The distinguishing feature in this particular case (or characteristic, culture or distinction) is that Catalan is therein spoken (albeit with diverse statutory names). The rendering, "Catalan Country" would therefore, be accurate (wouldn't it?). Now, engaging in OR as well, the "Cowboy country" -an expression extensively used in southern US- refers to a particular territory. Cowboy, being the English translation of the Spanish vaquero, also applies to a territory in Mexico that is maybe, but not necessarily adjacent to the territory in the US. Cowboy country also refers to the province of Alberta in Canada. Each of these territories is appropriately an uncountable "country", and each is referred to as such. Being located three different political locations (sovereign States) when referring to two, or the three separate entities (or any other cowboy country, for that matter), the plural happens to be used: the "cowboy countries", and not an entire global cowboy country. The same can be argued for Bible countries , rebel countries , "Catalan Country", while grammatically correct in Catalan, Spanish and English, would probably cause a hundred times more uproar in Valencia and the Balearic Islands, even if it only refers to language, as you would probably agree. But, being two regions in which Catalan is spoken -again, albeit with different statutory names- in Spanish, Catalan and English the term "Catalan Countries" -when referring to those individual territories with a distinctive characteristic (Catalan language), not necessarily coextensive with particular political entities- is more appropriate and -arguably, politically correct (using the American English idiom).

--the Dúnadan 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan, being my country, France, completely "splashed" by those "territories" called by you "countries", I invite you to read Pays (France). I invite you to understand our point in how a real neutral article, does explain the peculiarities of those territories, why they are called "pays" in french and how, IN ANY WAYS, a translation into english "countries" is used. The article is not called Countries (France). It uses the french "pays" as only in that language it has a meaning. Why is Catalonia to be different? --MauritiusXXVII 19:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Dunadan's answer

Point 1

Boynamedsue (talk) 15:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting WP:OR. I am sure the New York Times and the University of Kent would benefit from it, being English speaking institutions who make use of a English neologism that is semantically inaccurate, according to the above. It is not my place to argue or disqualify an OR. But I will give my comments.

It is not original research to discuss the validity of sources, and to disagree with the (erroneous) conclusions which you draw from them. Since our sources do not support the conclusions you draw from them, it is you who is closer to violating WP:OR. You are extrapolating from dictionary definitions of "country " to support your view of the meaning of "countries ", not providing examples of it meaning what you clain it means. You have provided, as to now, no evidence which supports your view.

The use by NYT and University of Kent are factors suibtable for discussion elsewhere, when we discuss the currency the neologism has gained since its coinage.

Point 2

"CUP does say that the definition of Country as Land is , arguably, uncountable. From that you extrapolate that the rest of the dictionaries also imply that the noun is uncountable. As far as I can tell, that is the core -and probably the only- argument. Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not."

• does not mean arguably uncountable, it means uncountable.

• The examples given are all uncountable, this is not opinion it is fact. This is true in all the dictionaries.

• The uncountable meaning is the one that you quote, in all cases. It is the only one that means a region rather than a nation-like entity, according to the CUP. Please re read the source you provided in full, if you are still unable to see this, I will post the definitions in full so everybody can see it.

• This sentence is circular reasoning:

"Since that particular meaning (acepció, in Catalan/Valencian), out of five possible meanings, is specified to be uncountable in one dictionary, then the only other meaning is that of sovereign countries which, obviously, the Catalan countries are not. "

I argue that "Catalan COUNTRIES" is incorrect English, as it uses a structure that can only be used with "Country" as an uncountable noun. You argue that this structure can't mean only this because if it did then the construction "Catalan Countries" would be incorrect. It is a mistranslation, plain and simple.

Point 3

• The distinguishing feature in this particular case (or characteristic, culture or distinction) is that Catalan is therein spoken (albeit with diverse statutory names). The rendering, "Catalan Country" would therefore, be accurate (wouldn't it?). Now, engaging in OR as well, the "Cowboy country" -an expression extensively used in southern US- refers to a particular territory. Cowboy, being the English translation of the Spanish vaquero, also applies to a territory in Mexico that is maybe, but not necessarily adjacent to the territory in the US. Cowboy country also refers to the province of Alberta in Canada. Each of these territories is appropriately an uncountable "country", and each is referred to as such. Being located three different political locations (sovereign States) when referring to two, or the three separate entities (or any other cowboy country, for that matter), the plural happens to be used: the "cowboy countries", and not an entire global cowboy country. The same can be argued for Bible countries , rebel countries , "Catalan Country", while grammatically correct in Catalan, Spanish and English, would probably cause a hundred times more uproar in Valencia and the Balearic Islands, even if it only refers to language, as you would probably agree. But, being two regions in which Catalan is spoken -again, albeit with different statutory names- in Spanish, Catalan and English the term "Catalan Countries" -when referring to those individual territories with a distinctive characteristic (Catalan language), not necessarily coextensive with particular political entities- is more appropriate and -arguably, politically correct (using the American English idiom).

--the Dúnadan 18:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your first use of "cowboy country" is as an uncountable noun. E.g "New Mexico is cowboy country" NOT "New Mexico is a cowboy country".

• You then google mined a reference to "cowboy countries", implying in your statement that this source referred to the three "cowboy countries" you previously mentioned. Google gives forty hits for "cowboy countries". The one you quote is the first on the list, the statement in context is:

” The US needs to take care of these cowboy countries, because these cowboy countries need a bigger cowboy to reign them in.”

Good faith forces me to assume that you hadn't read this quote, as it is obviously referring to Sovereign countries like Iran, Iraq and Venezuela, not "cowboy countries" like Wyoming and the Badlands of Montana.

• Bible countries, in the google results page you linked, refer, in all cases, to the countries in which the Hebrew Bible takes place. Israel, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt.

• Your third posted link, supporting "rebel countires" is to an organisation calling itself "The chronicles of Girku". They are very concerned about freemasonry. I feel that a quotation from their website should be enough to establish their credentials as arbiters of academic truth:

"The KUR, which is invisible to the three-dimensional perception of beings evolving in KI, consists of KUR-GAL, the 2nd dimension, and KUR-BALA, the 1st. This KUR is the region promulgated as "Hell" by the Judeo-Christian religions and, as such, it evokes images of a dark and lugubrious domain. However it is none of that! It is similar to our 3rd-dimensional world with its mountains, lakes, forests and deserts. On the other hand, its light is different, as are the sensations there.

As can be seen in the diagram, the KUR also includes two intermediate dimensions.

Just "below" our 3rd dimension is the intermediate dimension KUR-GI-A, meaning KUR of the "firm" Source, or the ANGAL."

Personal message

Dunadan, your use of sources is very worrying. You continue to post sources that do not support your argument, whilst claiming that they do. When this is pointed out to you, you attempt to muddy the waters by essay-posting and logical non-sequiturs. On this page you have cited 7 pages that I have had time to check, none of which support your argument in reality. I would not have gone to such lengths in doing so were it not for the fact that I have had this argument 3 times with you, and you seemingly refuse to see or understand any evidence you do not want to be there.

You know that I have a lot of respect for your dedication to wikipedia, and your breadth of knowledge on many topics. It is not a sign of weakness to admit you are wrong, there is still a debate to be had about the currency of the term "Catalan countries", but it must be based on usage rather than linguistic validity, and I am happy to take your contributions in good faith in this future debate.

Boynamedsue 16/12/2007

I am Mountolive and I approve this message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 13:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with Boynamedsue's arguments

By focusing on the nuances of the discussion, BNS, you are missing the big picture -and I got myself into trouble by trying to respond to your OR by engaging in a 5 minute OR myself. I don't know how else I can explain my arguments, so I will try for the las time to explain myself:

With all due respect, I believe you are engaging on OR simply because the term "Catalan Countries", whether right (in my eyes) or wrong (in your eyes) is the current term used in English, as the many links I presented above show, including the Academia. Even if it is a mistranslated neologism (as you call it), it is used currently. We had a similar discussion -albeit less heated- over the translation of the official name of Mexico, Estados Unidos Mexicanos, commonly rendered as "United Mexican States". The translation -used in almost all major serious publications in English- has been argued several times to be incorrect, since the adjective Mexicanos is qualifying the compound noun (historically written with a hyphen)Estados-Unidos. If that wasn't the case, according to the argument, the term in Spanish would make more semantic sense as Estados Mexicanos Unidos. Therefore, the argument goes, the correct rendering is "Mexican United States" (or following the historic spelling, "Mexican United-States"). We all concluded, however, that we were not in the position, as Wikipedians, of engaging in a possibly valid and correct OR, to disqualify was has become the traditional universal and Academic rendering of the term in English. We were not in the position of discrediting serious institutions or sources by our argumentation. (That would violate OR; we could, however, discredit sources with equally valid sources: if a reputable linguist had written that the translation of the Spanish term is wrong, then that source could be used, but not our work as linguistic amateurs). The same applies to Catalan Countries, regardless of how we feel about the term -or even how we feel about its political connotations. In fact, I believe that this debate is much more heated than that of Mexico, not because of its purported grammar or semantic inconsistencies but because of the different reactions that the term evokes (mainly political) of utter like/dislike of its meaning and how it has been advanced by some sectors in Spain.

If there has been a debate over how wrong the English-speaking world is by using a mistranslation, I fearfully foresee future arguments over the validity of the term itself in Catalan, and then, not only engaging in OR , but engaging in a POV war, in which each party will argue that the other one cannot possibly be right and how the term is completely wrong/right. Maybe my fears are unfounded -and do hope so- and we can write an article that truly presents all POVs (as required by WP:NPOV) without disqualifying each other.

--the Dúnadan 16:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with a lot of what you say above, and of course I would be disingenuous if I pretended that my motives were only linguistic (though knowing me as you do, you'll see that language is a big deal for me).

I agree that the usage of the term is the most important factor, but as the coinage "catalan countries" has a political dimension and is not yet very widespread (though I accept it has been used, albeit rarely, in some very respectable circles), we need to tread quite carefully.

I feel we can leave it like this for now, if you can accept there is little evidence for the "accurate translation" theory, I can accept that usage may have rendered this discussion obsolete, or may do so in the future.

My respects. Boynamedsue (talk) 09:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

the end is the beginning is the end

Based on the dicussion above (the "KUR" or "Hell") and some additional discussion held at my own talk page (probably the "ANGAL") looks like we are eventually ready to re-name the article "Països Catalans". If so, I would have no reasons to keep the tag, I would happily remove it. Yet the only minor problem would be the map including the "Catalan Sea" ("KUR-BALA"), but I am sure that a new one will be found soon (a new map, not a new sea, please) and in the meantime I can bear with this one, if only temporarily.

However Dúnadan rightly points out that, since Països Catalans exists already, if only as a redirect, We The People cant do this by ourselves, but an Administrator (amen) has to step in and do it for us, as only an Administrator (amen) is the only one capable of doing this re-organization of the whole KUR system, I guess.

But for that he may want to hear that we are all ok with this move, so please drop by and let us know your position: hopefully most of you will agree with this move and we can finally leave behind this issue.... and move on to the next one.

Anyway: I do agree with this proposed solution.

Your turn.

Mountolive 21:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. --the Dúnadan 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessary to ask an admin, the original page had just one edit as a histoy and therefore could be moved. Even since I think Dúnadan sources verified the possibility to call the article "Catalan Countries", I don't find it so important and I just want to finish the discussion. Now, let's work to find all POV in the article. My offer is still valid (section about proposed (and used) translations, etc...).--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 06:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the translation. I DON'T agree with the removal of the tag because still:

• It does not give any single reference about the use of this term by the population of all the regions and territories mentioned (apart Catalonia, of course)
• It disguises as a “linguistic sense” what clearly is a political feeling (once again, any reference is given to prove this point and, meanwhile, the political explanation covers 2/3 of the article).
• It uses Pan-Catalanist terms such as “Northern Catalonia” (which is not official nor has any meaning outside Catalonia) instead of the correct Roussillon (or whatever other name. I rather keep the neutrals Roussillon, Cerdagne, Vallespir and Conflent list of territories rather than the POVish "Northern Catalonia" which is clearly not appropriate). It is like calling Valencia, Catalonia del Sud. Absolutely not acceptable.
• It misusses medieval terms such as “Kingdom of Majorca” or “Kingdom of Valencia” (which do not exist anymore). Kingdom of Mallorca is Balears + Roussillon and Kingdom of Valencia is Valencia in XXI century.
• and finally, the removal of the Catalan Sea map is a must.

Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII 19:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Like I had forseen, some people were not truly concerned about the purpoted inaccuracies of a transalted term, but about pushing a particular POV. --the Dúnadan 23:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel like renaming back. Think better I quit again...--Xtv - (my talk) - (que dius que què?) 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I share some of Maurice's concerns, but I think that putting the tag back should be a last resort. Is "Northern Catalonia" used IN Northern Catalonia by anyone not associated with Catalan political parties? Is Roussillon more common? I genuinely don't know the answer to those questions. I believe "Catalogne" is used by some people, when speaking French (as most people habitually do in that region).

The dual linguistic and political senses of the term CAN, I feel be explained adecuately in the text of the article, it will just be a question of us working at it.

Medievalisms should surely be avoided where possible, but they may be necessary here or there, lets see which ones can be cut and which need to stay.

Putting the tag back is, for now, the nuclear option. Lets try a few edits first and see where it gets us. If it doesn;t wotk.. well, I guess it will be time to stop worrying and learn to love the bomb ;-)

Boynamedsue (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've already expressed my opinion. No one, excepting Dúnadan, has made "comments/allegations" (this with quotation marks, and I'm still waiting for his answer about my last explanation). Actually I cannot contribute in this article because I have no idea about what we are talking about: politics or linguistics. And I don't want to disrupt the consensus flow. So it's in your hands. All best. --Owdki 14:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made a temptative edit for the intro. Style and wording aside (please improve it) I think it is not too bad.

On the other side, probably, Maurice's concerns should be replied by either Dúnadan or Xtv.

In any case, it shouldnt be so difficult to find a new map (if that is impossible, the other one already present in the article could be good enough). As for the "Northern Catalonia" thing, it could be easily neutralized by one of those wikiperiphrasis in this fashion As for the usage of the term by people from other countries outside Catalonia, I think I could find some source in ERPV or some astray CUP ;) in Valencia. Mountolive 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is a term used in there. As for example in the webpage of the City council of Perpinyà . --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving it back to Catalan Countries

I am sorry because I have not able to be here in many days and now I want to reopen the discussion, but I cannot understand the moving that has been done. As I have understood reading it everyone agrees in the following facts:

• The references state that Catalan Countries is the term preferred by Catalan publications (when those are written in English).
• The concept of Catalan Countries is rarely used outside that territory by non-Catalanist people.

Then the page should be called Catalan Countries, as the only people who use it (Catalan nationalists) translate the term like this when talking in English. It seems to me that you all are trying to say that Catalan nationalists cannot use the English language and that therefore the term has to be in Catalan language but this is not true. To accept the use of Països Catalans I would like to see substantial references that prove its use in texts written in English language. --SMP - talk (en) - talk (ca) 17:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Unassessed Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Unknown-importance Catalan-speaking countries articles
• WikiProject Catalan-speaking countries articles
• Unassessed Spain articles
• Unknown-importance Spain articles
• All WikiProject Spain pages
• Unassessed France articles
• Unknown-importance France articles
• All WikiProject France pages